Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Rail Links (West Wales)

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek urgent talks with the EC Transport Commissioner with a view to improving rail links between west Wales and the continent of Europe.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the Transport Commissioner. Rail links with west Wales are already included in the proposed trans-European conventional rail network.

Mr. Davies: With due respect, that does not amount to very much. Do not the Secretary of State and the Minister realise that, with an increasing amount of British trade locked into the European Union and as west Wales is on the periphery of the Brussels empire, there is a real problem in trade and investment? Is the Minister aware that there are many ideas to improve the situation, such as upgrading the ports and providing ferry links with Poole and rail links through the north downs? Will he sit down with the Transport Commissioner and with representatives of Dyfed county council and the local authorities to try to solve that serious problem?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend and I are most anxious to ensure that the whole of Wales, including west Wales, has first-class links with the continent for trading purposes. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there will be three inter-city trains a day running from south Wales to Waterloo, the international terminal, and one of those trains will serve Milford Haven. I am told that, certainly, the others will start from Swansea.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the north downs railway line from Reading to Redhill to be upgraded to provide a direct rail link between the channel tunnel and south Wales? Since such a route would avoid congested lines through inner London, provide a direct passenger train service to Europe from Wales and put Cardiff within only four hours of Paris, will he undertake to press the case with British Rail?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I will ensure that that matter is given every consideration.

Development Agencies

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reorganise the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency has recently announced the terms of his internal reorganisation of that agency and I have recently announced the new guidelines, which I have issued. The future of the Development Board for Rural Wales is under review.

Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those announcements are most welcome? Will he give the House an assurance that the standards followed by the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales in future will be those that the Committee of Public Accounts and Parliament have the right to expect?

Mr. Redwood: I strongly hope that that will be the case. I have asked the chairmen and chief executives of those agencies to take full account of the strong views of the PAC and the House of Commons and of my views. We want the highest standards. I wish to see the agencies uphold them and I trust that they will do so.

Mr. Flynn: What is the point if all the work of those two bodies is negated by the actions of privatised companies, especially British Gas, where, we are told, the number of jobs in Wales is about to be reduced from 2,903 to, probably, less than 1,000 because it is pursuing a policy which is profit first and in which safety and the regional need for jobs in Wales come nowhere?

Mr. Redwood: I have written to the chairman of British Gas saying that Wales offers a great deal and have urged the company to make full use of Wales for the location of its business activities. I have received a reply in which he admits that Wales is a good place in which to locate and assures me that there will still be a strong presence there. I am afraid that Wales cannot be exempt from the efficiency gains that British Gas will be making, any more than the rest of the United Kingdom can.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed to me at the weekend by tenants of the Development Board for Rural Wales on the Ffrwgrech estate in Brecon? He will know that the development board must pursue a policy of maximising its assets, but the tenants are concerned that the whole of the estate is to be sold to an outside investor. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House that he will encourage the Development Board for Rural Wales to look first to its own tenants so that we build in rural Wales an economy in which, very often, local businesses own their own factories?

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is better if tenants buy their own freehold premises. I wish to see the development board offer those premises to the tenants, but, of course, the tenants must make a fair offer in return. We wish to raise money by selling existing assets so that we have more money to spend on new assets to create new investment and new jobs for Wales. However, I will ensure that the chairman of the DBRW is aware of my hon. Friend's remarks. Like my hon. Friend, I want tenants to be given a fair opportunity.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State give his unequivocal backing to the public statement made today by the chairman of the DBRW that the interests of economic development in rural Wales are best served by having a separate organisation, the DBRW?

Mr. Redwood: I am reviewing the best way to deliver those services, so I wish to complete that review before answering that question.

Mr. Llwyd: Although I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said about the British Gas situation and would very much like to associate myself with his comments, if there is to be a reorganisation of the DBRW will the Secretary of State consider the rent reviews? That has been a matter of grave concern, especially in my constituency where one third or more of the units are empty simply because the rack rents asked may be reasonable in Birmingham but are not in rural Wales.

Mr. Redwood: I quite agree that rents must be related to market circumstances. I have asked all the agencies with empty property to put at the top of their list the need to find tenants for those properties and, therefore, to find a market-clearing level of rent that enables those tenants to come forward. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If hon. Members have other points that they would like to be taken into account in my review of the DBRW, they have a good opportunity to do that now or in writing this week.

Mr. Morgan: Notwithstanding the public admonition from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) to the Secretary of State in his supplementary question earlier, as the senior-ranking Tory member of the Public Accounts Committee, does the Secretary of State agree that the executive reorganisation at the top of the Welsh Development Agency to which he referred in his answer is in clear breach of the undertakings given by him to the House on 19 October when he introduced the report by Sir John Caines and said that those recommendations would be accepted in full by the top management of the WDA? Does he also agree that, until the mess of that reorganisation is sorted out, it is unlikely that the WDA and the DBRW will be able to repeat the amazing sporting achievements of Colin Jackson and Steve Robinson over the past weekend?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman did not say how he thought that was out of line with the Caines report. Of course, I will consider any allegation that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make specifically on that point. The chairman has announced his reorganisation. I believe that it will deliver more service for less administrative cost, which is something I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome.

Unemployment

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Clwyd.

Mr. Redwood: The level in January 1994 was 16,739 unadjusted out of work or 9.1 per cent.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past two weeks, 80 potential jobs have been lost from Clwyd to Merseyside and a similar number have been placed under threat by the deliberate actions of the Welsh

Office in respect of the mishandling of a planning application at Mostyn in Clwyd? Will the Secretary of State please explain to the House why he took those actions and why he allowed that to happen, despite repeated warnings to the contrary?

Mr. Redwood: I should be delighted to have this opportunity to put the record straight. The hon. Gentleman well knows why I took the action that I did. I had wanted the local authority to settle the issue. I thought that that was the best way forward. I thought that it would be able to take full account of the environmental objections, the jobs and the economic case.
I then received legal advice that stated that, because the application impinged on a European special protection area, I had to call it in. I had no choice. Had the local authority gone ahead and made the decision, it would have been subject to legal challenge and might not have stood up. I acted as I did because of that legal advice. It would have been better if the local authority had been asked to determine the matter. I cannot comment now on the substance of the application because I have to approach it with an open mind.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policies of the Government, and especially the Welsh Office, have led to a huge increase in the number of new jobs in Clwyd replacing the jobs lost in traditional industries? Would he care to pay a tribute to the work of Chwarae Teg in getting women into the work force in Clwyd, and especially in helping them with training?

Mr. Redwood: I should, indeed, like to echo my hon. Friend's comments: there has been a massive expansion in investment and job opportunities.

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman wrote those comments.

Mr. Redwood: No. My hon. Friend speaks for himself. He seems to know better than Labour Members what is good news in Clwyd and how much has been arrived at because of the Government's policies and the agencies that have been assisting. I hope that Labour Members will also welcome that news because, although there are still too many people out of work, there have been many major new projects, particularly in the energy field in that part of Wales, and there is much more good news to come.

Mr. Ron Davies: It is a truly appalling figure for Clwyd, as indeed it is for the whole of Wales. We now have 10 per cent. unemployment in Wales, and under this Government we have seen the loss of 113,000 manufacturing jobs. What action does the Secretary of State advocate to tackle those critical weaknesses in British industry, which were identified in a recent Royal Society of Arts report as
chronic underinvestment, a lack of commitment, inflexibility and the failure to focus on long term goals"?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that he has any responsibility at all for what is happening to the Welsh economy?

Mr. Redwood: Unemployment is falling and I look forward to further falls in the months ahead because of the economic policies that we are pursuing. It is a bit rich for Labour Members to come up with that criticism, because they have no ideas, no new money to offer and only one gag—the gag from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East


(Mr. Brown), who stops them saying anything that they want to say. What is the point of being a socialist if one cannot spend more of other people's money, or offer to spend more of other people's money? Our policies are based on labour market flexibility, encouragement for investment, low inflation and sound economic fundamentals.

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in Wales.

Mr. Redwood: In January 1994, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure was 127,500—a fall of 6,500 since January 1993 or an average fall of 500 a month.

Mr. Coombs: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of a high-spending, high-taxing Welsh assembly and the European social chapter on unemployment in Wales? Would not the Labour party's policies and those of their European cronies be disastrous for Wales and lead to a reversal of the trend in unemployment which my right hon. Friend so warmly welcomes, as I do?

Mr. Redwood: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. An assembly that taxed more and regulated more would put businesses off going to Wales and drive out some of those already there. I understand that Labour Members are getting worried about that. They think that maybe the assembly should not have taxing powers. But surely it would have spending powers; that means that it would end up taxing more, which would be bad news for business and bad news for jobs.

Mr. Roy Hughes: With reference to the question on the Order Paper, are not the figures far too high, especially in the male sector? Does the Secretary of State recognise that part-time jobs for women will never replace the thousands of jobs lost in coal and steel? Will the Government and the Welsh Development Agency step up their efforts to bring new enterprises to Wales?

Mr. Redwood: That is exactly what we are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the news today, which I just heard, of up to 600 new jobs over a three-year period from the Goodings satellite television receiver venture in Mid Glamorgan. That is extremely welcome news and means that there are likely to be further falls in unemployment which I, like Labour Members, sincerely wish to see. Of course, one in 10 out of work is far too many, but our policies of low inflation, good economic growth and attraction of investment will deliver jobs.

Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend estimated the impact of inward investment on unemployment in Wales? Does he believe that inward investment would be encouraged by a national minimum wage, the adoption of the social chapter and the nonsenses from Brussels which are advocated by the Opposition?

Mr. Redwood: I have, indeed, looked at the figures. More than 11,000 new and safeguarded jobs in the first 10 months of this year have been attracted, as recorded by Welsh Development International, and there may have been more. Those jobs are extremely beneficial. The worry is that if the policies of the Opposition were followed, Wales would no longer be attractive for many of those

companies that come, they say, because they want to benefit from being in the EC and have the added benefit of not having the same social arrangements as are enjoyed by some continental countries.

Mr. Wigley: I welcome those 600 new jobs and any other new jobs which come. Does the Secretary of State realise that 2,000 jobs are about to be lost in the gas industry, and that 400 or 500 of those are in Clwyd? On the point made by the Secretary of State a moment ago with regard to Mostyn docks, does he realise that the loss of that infrastructure project will affect not only Clwyd but my county of Gwynedd? Why was it not possible for the Welsh Office to turn that around within five weeks, as in the case of Cardiff? If that had been done, would not the project be alive and would not we be looking forward to the jobs that came with it?

Mr. Redwood: I should like to turn it around as quickly as possible and come to a fair decision, but I must take legal advice. There is no point in acting illegally, because the decision would be overturned in a court of law. A proper environmental assessment is needed so that a proper judgment can be reached, given the special European designation in that area. That is the problem, and why progress takes time. It must be done carefully so that people can see that it is done fairly.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome other good news, such as that from Amcor Packaging, where there will be 150 new jobs during the next three years, from Control Techniques in Newtown and from Stevens and George in Merthyr Tydfil, which recently announced new jobs.

Energy and Transport Strategy

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for a co-ordinated strategy for (a) energy and (b) transport for Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Plans are set out in "Sustainable Development—The UK Strategy", "This Common Inheritance", annual progress reports, the 1994 Welsh Office departmental report and various policy planning guidance notes and in my right hon. Friend's announcement to the House on 3 March on strategic road plans.

Mr. Hughes: May I encourage Ministers to make sure that there is a clearly separate energy and transport strategy for the Principality that fits in with the UK and European framework? Given that one of the things that would benefit both would be the transfer of freight from road to rail in Wales, will Ministers consider whether there can be an increase in subsidy for that purpose? Would not that take traffic away from the roads, increase the use of the railways, save energy, reduce pollution and reduce congestion at the same time?

Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I will make sure that the interests of Wales are fully safeguarded in the UK's consideration of the matter. It is not possible for Wales to be considered in isolation because of the obvious relativity involved.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about freight traffic on the railway, I think that the principle is absolutely sound.


I look forward to the opportunities that I am sure the channel tunnel will bring for an increase in freight traffic in Wales carried on the railways.

Mr. Roger Evans: Will my hon. Friend join me in being careful of the phrase—the cant, humbug phrase—"co-ordinated strategy" when used by the Opposition? Is that not normally a code for more state interference, more bossiness from Whitehall and less listening to what the people of Wales really want? Does he agree that, these days, proposals to build new railway lines would be open to considerable environmental objections?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There are enough examples in the past of left-wing and Labour Governments—including those supported by the Liberal party—trotting out plan after plan. We know full well that the one thing centralised planning is sure to do is fail.

Mr. Llew Smith: On energy, will the Minister inform me as to what proportion of the non-fossil fuel levy goes to renewables and what proportion to nuclear?

Mr. Jones: That is a rather detailed question for which I had better provide the hon. Gentleman with a detailed answer.

Deregulation

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for extending the deregulation initiative to the work of his Department.

Mr. Redwood: The deregulation initiative runs across Whitehall. The Welsh Office is co-operating fully.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he includes in his review of the regulations the appalling complexity that now seems to pervade every aspect of agricultural administration, which supposedly requires every farmer to have a double first in legal interpretation and accountancy?

Mr. Redwood: I agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses. Of course, we shall work with our European partners and urge simplification and a more accessible system. Where we have powers ourselves, I shall make sure that they are properly used, as I have done in simplifying the integrated administration and control system forms recently.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in view of what has happened in the past six to nine months in Wales, what we have is not deregulation in the Welsh Office but the Welsh Office out of control? Rather than accepting the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), it is about time that the Secretary of State got to grips with the unelected bodies in Wales and the corruption that pervades right through the system.

Mr. Redwood: It is a grotesque calumny to say that there is corruption right through the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again before saying that and realise that such serious allegations require evidence to back them. Of course, I wish to see the high standards that he desires; I have made no secret of that. I have also set out guidelines and guidance to ensure that high standards are observed.

Hospitals

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has made to take Welsh hospitals into the next century; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Since 1979, £1.4 billion has been spent on improving the national health service estate in Wales: 60 major hospital schemes have been completed or are under way. I am to announce shortly details of the new capital programme. My right hon. Friend and I regularly visit hospitals throughout Wales. I look forward this coming Wednesday to launching the new magnetic resonance imaging scanner in Cardiff at the University hospital of Wales.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I hope that the Minister is aware that there is an increasing fashion among hospital administrators to locate all the facilities that they possibly can under one roof, regardless of the convenience or feelings of the local community or of the use that it makes of those facilities. Does he have any sympathy with older hospitals, much loved by their patients, which face closure as a result of that misguided policy? I should like an answer, particularly on Cardiff royal infirmary.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The interests of the community clearly ought to be considered on every occasion. The movement towards trust status, whose popularity in Wales is increasing rapidly, emphasises exactly that point. That is what we look for in every application for trust status. There must be greater benefits to the local community that the hospitals serve.
On the point about Cardiff royal infirmary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already placed it firmly on the record, and I fully subscribe to his view, that the closest consideration must be given to any question of closing a hospital in Wales. The case must be fully proved before such action can be justified.

Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposed cancer treatment centre at Glan Clwyd NHS trust hospital, which will benefit cancer sufferers throughout north Wales and beyond, will go ahead as planned, despite attempts by Opposition Members to stop the plan?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I know that my hon. Friend has been stalwart in campaigning for the new facility at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. It is absolutely right that we should have that new cancer treatment facility in north Wales. It has been most carefully researched and the decision has been given the go-ahead. I look forward to the centre being set up as soon as possible.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick to discuss his proposals for local government reorganisation.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that my constituents in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick will be angry and disappointed with that reply because they believe that the continuing failure of the Welsh Office to single out that one area—where, in an Electoral Reform Society ballot with a 75 per cent. turnout, almost 90 per


cent. voted in favour of staying with Bridgend—will bring democracy into disrepute and turn to ashes anything that the Government have ever said about respecting the will of the people?

Mr. Jones: I am disappointed to realise that my presence is so sorely missed in Ewenny, St. Bride's Major and Wick. We have already carefully considered the matter in the proposals that we are putting to the House. There will be the fullest opportunity to debate it in the Second Reading debate tomorrow afternoon on the Local Government (Wales) Bill. I am sure that in Committee we shall give the most careful consideration to where the three communities should be located. I must say that they appear to be much more rural in character and more appropriate to the Vale of Glamorgan.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that there is widespread concern throughout the length and breadth of Wales, and not only in the Vale of Glamorgan, the heads of the valleys, Meirionnydd and Montgomery, at the boundaries contained in the Local Government (Wales) Bill? The Minister referred to the Bill, which will receive its Second Reading tomorrow. May I take it from the reply that he has just given that he is prepared to be flexible? If so, will he tell us the extent to which the Government are prepared to be flexible on boundaries, should the Bill receive a Second Reading?

Mr. Jones: It is, of course, for Parliament to consider that.

EC Commission

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last visited Brussels; and when he next intends to visit Brussels to discuss with the Commissioner matters relating to his departmental responsibilities.

Sir Wyn Roberts: There has been no occasion for my right hon. Friend to visit Brussels since his appointment. He has, however, renewed invitations to key Commissioners to visit Wales and we hope that they will be able to do so.

Mr. Rowlands: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a neglect of duty, considering that so many decisions taken in Brussels affect our communities. For example, is he aware that, during the past five years, all four pits in my constituency have closed and more than 2,000 miners' jobs have been lost? Will there be a repeat performance of the charade and farce that accompanied the first RECHAR programme, when the second programme is introduced? How much money is available under the second phase of RECHAR and will it go directly to those communities affected directly by pit closures, such as mine?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that his constituency did especially well under the RECHAR programme. Merthyr has had about 10 projects with a value of £1.3 million and Wales has had about 170 projects, valued at £21 million. I am glad to be able to tell him that the RECHAR programme is one of the initiatives that will be continued and that 0.4 billion ecu will be devoted to it.
On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, United Kingdom interests are well represented by my right hon.

Friends and the Welsh Office is very much in touch with the Commission through its officials and through Ministers when necessary. I had the privilege of attending an informal council in Liege just before Christmas.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 600 jobs that the Secretary of State announced earlier have been created to produce transceivers for the satellite industry, which are destined for the Dutch and German market? When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visits Brussels, will he resist all the trans-European, pan-socialist dogma which has driven business out of Germany and Holland and brought it to south Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt about it—many companies in south Wales are operating with machinery that was once in Europe and has been drawn back to Wales because it is more productive there.
On our relationships with Europe, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been leading an export mission to Europe and this evening I am going to Barcelona to lead another export mission. My hon. Friend is right—[Interruption. ] Opposition Members simply do not realise how much progress Wales has made as a gateway into Europe.

Public Bodies

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments to unelected bodies in Wales are his responsibility.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend is currently responsible for 798 appointments to public bodies in Wales. The quarterly list updating the details to 1 March will be available in the Library of the House shortly.

Mr. Powell: I wonder whether the Minister will give us some information. He is aware of the fight that the Conservative party put up against quangos and unelected bodies. Why have the Conservatives changed their minds? Can he give details of the political affiliations of those appointed? Can he also give due consideration to ensuring that when the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan health authority is appointed, he or she will have the political affiliation that is shared by all the Members of Parliament who represent Mid-Glamorgan?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must realise that we do not know the political affiliations of a great many of those appointees. They are not asked that question, although they are given an opportunity to instance a position that they have held in a political party. I am sure that there a great many members of the Labour party, the Liberal party and Plaid Cymru among those 798 appointees to whom I referred in the answer.

Barry-Rhoose Railway Line

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans there are for the opening of the railway line between Barry and Rhoose for passenger traffic.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that South Glamorgan county council is in the lead with Regional Railways in an investigation into the feasibility of introducing a limited passenger rail service on the Vale of Glamorgan line with a stop at Rhoose.

Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend note the warm welcome that has been given in the Vale of Glamorgan to the announcement by the Welsh Office that grant aid is likely to be available for an improved road link between Culverhouse Cross and Cardiff Wales? Will he join me in urging the highway authority, South Glamorgan county council, to take up that offer of help? Is any grant aid likely to be available for the rail link to which my right hon. Friend alluded?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks about my right hon. Friend's announcement about the road link to the airport at Rhoose. With regard to the rail link, it is possible for us to assist such a scheme if it is submitted to us as part of the strategic development scheme.

Welsh Elected Body

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make it his policy to ensure an elected body for Wales.

Mr. Redwood: We do not need another elected body in Wales.

Mr. Jones: We have had 15 years of Conservative Government, during which we have seen greater centralisation than ever before in the history of democracy, powers stripped away from local authorities and Conservatives appointed to quangos in Wales. The Minister of State has just told us that he is to visit Barcelona—Catalonia is the most successful economy in Europe. Is not it time that the Government learnt that the people of Wales now want their own Parliament?

Mr. Redwood: I am very interested in the idea that Catalonia is the most successful economy in western Europe. I thought that Spain had an unemployment rate of about one in four of the work force. I certainly would not want such a rate for Wales and his comment shows that there is no progress in the hon. Gentleman's views.
We do not want another body that taxes, regulates and legislates—too many laws already exist. We need to deregulate to make the task of business easier, so that people in Wales can have real jobs and more choice.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole thrust of Government policy is to ensure that decisions are made in schools by governing bodies and in hospitals by trusts and that it is not designed to try to create yet another layer of bureaucracy? Surely the unitary authority programme that we have brought forward has been warmly welcomed in Wales. There has been no drive towards creating a third layer of local government.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. He has answered another part of the previous question, because we restore real power to people—parents and patients—and offer choices in public services which Opposition Members would deny people. That is exactly the kind of democracy that is best and closest to people. An assembly would have to take powers away from local government and that would cause rows in the Opposition camp as well.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does not the Minister feel a sense of shame that he has to appoint about 800 people to

quangos and that they are responsible for about one third of public expenditure in Wales? Should not democracy mean
government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people"?
Is not the use of unaccountable Tory placemen a corruption of democracy?

Mr. Redwood: I believe that local councils appoint quite a lot of people to the governing bodies of schools. I think that that is perfectly healthy and it is an analogue to what I am doing on behalf of Parliament and the people of Wales, in appointing people to bodies charged by the House, often under Labour legislation, to carry out certain tasks. As for spending, by far and away the biggest part of the Welsh Office delegated budget passes directly to local government in the form of a bloc grant.

Inward Investment

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of inward investment to Wales.

Mr. Redwood: In the first 10 months of the current financial year, Welsh Development International recorded 120 projects, which promise about 11,000 new and safeguarded jobs and a capital investment of £630 million.

Dr. Spink: Does not that demonstrate our economic success in a difficult world recession in a way that is not just good for Wales but good for the whole of our nation?

Mr. Redwood: That was a short and accurate question and I would give a short and accurate answer—yes.

Mr. Ainger: Does not the Minister accept that instead of sending the Minister of State to Barcelona he should send him to Brussels especially to intervene in the mess that the Commission has got itself in over Interreg II, as a result of which Dyfed in particular stands to lose a significant sum—possibly tens of millions of pounds—in European investment in the next six years because we are now being excluded by the Commission from the consultation process? Can he assure us that either he or the Minister of State is taking the matter up at the highest level in Brussels?

Mr. Redwood: Of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Office is taking the matter up in Brussels, as he would expect. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State does great work for Wales in representing us in many countries in Europe, and I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) recognises that there is benefit in trade links of the type that my right hon. Friend is extending. The Under-Secretary also recently visited Brussels.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Stipends

Mr. Lidington: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the effect which the reduction of their contribution towards stipends will have on the number of parish clergy.

Mr. Michael Alison: The proportion of the costs of stipends met by the Church Commissioners is estimated to decrease from 37 per cent. to about 20 per cent. by 1997 as a result of our planned reductions in diocesan stipend allocations. The extent to which that affects the number of parish clergy will depend on diocesan planning and lay giving. Our remaining support for dioceses will, however, continue to be targeted to help sustain the parochial ministry in areas of greatest need.

Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any organisation in financial difficulties needs to seek to restrain its overhead costs? Can he therefore assure the House that synods, bishops and the Commissioners themselves will not be exempt from the need for stringency?

Mr. Alison: The General Synod proposes to introduce cash-limited budgeting during the next two or three years. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Commissioners themselves have managed to reduce their staff by 25 per cent. during the past 11 years and that increasing productivity will continue on trend.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what provisions are being made by the Church Commissioners to protect stipends of clergy following losses made on the property markets.

Mr. Alison: As the majority of the stipends bill is met from lay giving in parishes, any further improvement in stipend levels will largely depend on the willingness of laity to give more generously. Stipends are being increased by an average of 2.9 per cent. from this April and the majority of dioceses have recently supported a proposal for modest increases from April next year.

Mr. Banks: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that those enormous losses were made by the Church Commissioners? Is it because of the incompetence in property speculation that the commissioners showed or is it because the Almighty has indicated his strong disapproval of property speculation? In either case, is not it unfair that priests should be expected to suffer the consequences, and that lay members should be asked to increase their contributions to cover the incompetence of the commissioners? Surely the Church Commissioners and their advisers should foot the bill.

Mr. Alison: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the answer that I gave him, which is that the stipends are increasing by rather more next year than the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary salary, and probably by rather more the year after than the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary salary. So the invocation of the Divinity upon the prospects for pay in different parts of the country should take into account that He is obviously looking rather less favourably on Members of Parliament than on the clergy.

Parsons (Early Retirement)

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans there are to introduce an early retirement scheme for parsons; and what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the financial consequences of such a scheme.

Mr. Alison: The pension scheme already contains a provision enabling clergy to retire with an immediate pension and retirement lump sum up to five years before the minimum normal pension age. Discussions are taking place within the Church to determine whether it would be appropriate and financially feasible to introduce a specific scheme aimed at encouraging some clergy who are close to pension age to retire early, in order to free posts for younger clergy.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the parsons' freehold affects the efficiency of the Church adversely, and also restricts opportunities for young and enthusiastic ordinands?

Mr. Alison: No, I do not think that I can go down that road. The parsons' freehold is not an immovable and irresistible block in the way of movement in the Church; nevertheless, I believe that it gives some genuine and, I believe, appropriate independence to clergy whose doctrine and ministry may not always be strictly in line with what parishioners want. I consider that desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Public Record Office

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of the public visited the Public Record Office search rooms in Chancery lane during 1993.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): A total number of 104,429 reader visits were made to the Public Record Office search rooms at the Chancery lane site during 1993. The census microfilm search room accounted for 76,798 of the visits, while the remaining 27,000-odd visits were to the search rooms for original documents.

Mr. Lidington: The Department's plan to shift the PRO's facilities in their entirety to Kew will create difficulties of access for many readers who use Chancery lane. Will my hon. Friend consider keeping the Chancery lane search rooms open, perhaps as a family history centre, so that people can use the microfilm and other facilities?

Mr. Taylor: No decision has yet been made about the future use of the Chancery lane site. It is the subject of a review currently being undertaken by the Public Record Office and Property Holdings. The review is expected to be completed by 30 September 1994. If my hon. Friend wishes to give me the benefit of his thoughts, I shall be very grateful.

Mr. Maclennan: If a member of the public searched any part of the PRO, would he find a precedent—since the English revolution of 1688—for the monstrous and unconstitutional pressure put by the Lord Chancellor on Mr. Justice Wood, the president of the employment appeals tribunal, to violate his judicial oath and deny appellants an oral hearing in order, in his own words, to save the taxpayer costs?

Mr. Taylor: It is no part of my job to respond on judicial matters from the Dispatch Box; but I happen to think that if the hon. Gentleman were fully appraised of the facts, he would not have expressed himself in that way.

Mr. Boateng: It is, however, part of the Minister's job to respond to questions relating to the Public Record Office itself. Will he confirm that the review that he mentioned in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) includes inquiries with the intention of imposing a charge on use of the PRO? Does he not accept that his role, and that of the Lord Chancellor, is to protect ease of access and freedom of use? Are we not witnessing—in terms of the development of the PRO—not the next step, but the final step to privatisation?

Mr. Taylor: There are no current plans to privatise the PRO. As for charging the public, the question of charges for access to the records is the subject of a review currently being undertaken by the PRO. An extensive market research exercise asking for the views of users has been carried out. The review is expected to be completed by 31 March; so the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House will not have long to wait.

Sex Offences

Dr. Spink: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to encourage the publication of the names and addresses of those appearing on court lists in respect of sex offences and subsequently being found guilty.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I have no plans to encourage the publication of the names and addresses of those convicted in the courts of sex offences.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that 21 homosexual men were recently prosecuted in my local court for acts of gross indecency in a public toilet only a few minutes' walk from my house? Is he aware that all the public toilets in my constituency must now be closed at night, and that one has been taken out of use? Would not the publication of those men's names and addresses act as a deterrent?

Mr. Taylor: It is not the function of the courts to publicise details of convicted persons. The press may do so when the information is given in proceedings held in open court, unless a restriction order is in force, and, as my hon. Friend should know, almost all such cases are held in open court. The only exemptions are for the victims of sexual offences and for children and young persons involved in criminal offences.

Mrs. Roche: So far as sexual offences are concerned, can the Minister tell the House what stage the judicial studies programme for the training of judges in these matters has reached? Are outside speakers being taken on to deal with very serious matters, such as rape trauma syndrome?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady may be reassured that the matters she raises are high on the agenda of the Judicial Studies Board. Outside experts will certainly be contracted to provide the benefit of their knowledge and wisdom.

Magistrates Courts

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations have taken place between the magistrates' associations and his Department over the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor and I and our officials have consulted the Magistrates' Association on many occasions in the two years since our proposals were published. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. O'Brien: How does the Minister reconcile the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 31 January—Official Report, Vol. 236, column 610—in which he said that justices' clerks would be responsible to local magistrates committees, with the fact that in my area of Wakefield and Pontefract the magistrates committees will be abolished as a result of the amalgamation proposed under the Bill? How does the Minister reconcile his reply on that occasion with practicality? Will he now face reality and change the proposals in the Bill to ensure that local magistrates committees may continue?

Mr. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. I am at pains to tell him that, even if there are amalgamations—for example, in his own area—they will merely create a larger administrative unit under a magistrates courts committee. There will be a magistrates courts committee consisting of locally selected magistrates, and I can repeat the assurance that the justices' clerks and their chief will be answerable to the committee, which will have the authority. It will be a locally run service, which is what the hon. Gentleman and I both want.

Mr. Sims: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the magistracy in south-east and south-west London has been very concerned at suggestions that the Lord Chancellor might use his powers under this legislation to amalgamate all the courts in the area under a single administration. Can my hon. Friend assure me that no such plan will be implemented without very careful consultation? Can he assure me, in particular, that the Lord Chancellor will have to satisfy himself that amalgamation would be more cost effective than the present arrangements?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend should know that we are still exploring with the outer London action group the details of its proposals. My officials' next meeting with the group will be held on Wednesday. The Lord Chancellor and I are hopeful that it will be possible to find a system that delivers our objectives in restructuring the outer London service, but falls short of amalgamating committees. We are working with the service to that end.

Legal Aid

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations he has received from legal practitioners, the Law Society and the Bar Council regarding the freezing of legal aid rates.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The Department has to date received about 20 letters from solicitors and local law societies expressing concern about legal aid rates. The Law Society and the Bar Council are consulted when fee rates are reviewed and have expressed similar concerns.

Mr. Llwyd: Does the Lord Chancellor's Department realise that growing numbers of solicitors' firms are now going out of legal aid practice altogether and that this sad fact, coupled with last year's savage cuts in the green form


scheme, has resulted in tens of thousands of people in Wales, England and Scotland being deprived of access to legal advice and assistance?

Mr. Taylor: There is no evidence that legal aid fee rates are inadequate to allow solicitors to continue to undertake legal aid work. Since 1988–89, the proportion of solicitors' offices in England and Wales that received payment for legal aid work has increased from 68 to 82 per cent.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the Government were to do more to encourage private insurance in litigation cases, there would be less pressure on the legal aid fund and less need to freeze legal aid rates?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend should know that expenditure on legal aid this year is expected to rise by 12 per cent. The Lord Chancellor announced that he will be increasing all legal aid income eligibility limits by 3.8 per cent. and the green form limit by 15 per cent. He is also abolishing the means test for ABWOR—assistance by way of representation—for mental health review tribunals. Those measures prove the Government's continuing commitment to the legal aid scheme. Legal expenses insurance certainly has a role to play, but the market must show itself willing to participate. Progress in that respect seems to be slow.

Limitation Law

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to complete his review of the limitation law.

Mr. John M. Taylor: We are considering whether the Limitation Act 1980 should be amended to change the limitation period that applies where a plaintiff claims damages for non-accidental personal injuries. We hope to reach a conclusion by the end of the year.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister accept that the current limitation law is out-dated and inappropriate and does not take account of, for example, the specific circumstances of people who have been subject to childhood sexual abuse and who try to take legal action in adult life? Will he assure me that the circumstances of such people will be taken into account in the current review and give me an idea of how soon the review will be completed?

Mr. Taylor: The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is by the end of the year.

Magistrates Courts

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average age of the magistrates serving on the Lichfield and Rugeley benches.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The average age of magistrates serving on the Lichfield and Rugeley benches is, in both instances, 52.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done? Does he agree that, if it is to be seen to be done, magistrates should be drawn from all age groups and from all sociological backgrounds? What exactly are the Government doing to encourage that?

Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor seeks to maintain a proper balance of ages on benches. It is important that there should be young as well as older people to ensure a continuity of experience. Efforts are made to ensure that people are aware that it is open to them to apply, but only those who put themselves forward can be appointed.

Trainee Solicitors

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with the Law Society on the remuneration of solicitors in training.

Mr. John M. Taylor: None. Trainee solicitors negotiate their own terms with their employers. This is an internal matter within the profession.

Mr. Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great problems being experienced by aspiring solicitors in getting grants from local authorities because such grants are discretionary? Is he further aware that, four years ago, the College of Law received two thirds of its income from local authorities but the figure has now fallen to 9 per cent? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Department for Education to see what can be done, otherwise solicitors will be drawn from an ever narrower bunch of people in society?

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about law students rather than trainee solicitors, to whom his initial question referred, he has correctly anticipated my answer. The policy on the awarding of grants for postgraduate education is a matter for the Secretary of State for Education. However, I do consult Ministers at the Department for Education and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that trainee solicitors face another problem in that many study for three years for a qualification and then sometimes have a job getting on to a course for their final year in order to achieve the full qualification? Is he proposing to do anything to make more places available so that when trainee solicitors have completed three years' training, they have the opportunity to become fully qualified?

Mr. Taylor: As I understand the problem, the difficulty is that grants for postgraduate qualifications—that is, the solicitors' professional examination after a degree—are discretionary; they are in the hands of local authorities. It is a matter for local authorities to decide and it lies ill in the mouths of those who argue for local authorities to have discretion to blame the Government for the way in which that discretion is used.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Law Society, the solicitors and all those involved in the profession are excellent, they should be responsible for making proposals to ensure that trainee solicitors can be remunerated properly while they are training?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, of course. The profession has responsibilities which are concomitant with being independent and self-regulating.

Insolvency (Employees' Rights)

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Insolvency Act provisions relating to employees' rights as regards administrators, administrative receivers and, in Scotland, receivers. The need for this statement arises out of a recent judgment by the Court of Appeal in the administration of Paramount Airways Ltd. For the House to appreciate the importance of this, let me first set out the legal background.
Under the Insolvency Act 1986, an administrator may be appointed to manage the affairs, business and property of a company in financial difficulties with a view to the survival of the company or its business, the approval of a voluntary arrangement or the sanctioning of a compromise or arrangement with its creditors.
The administrator has to consider the basis of continuing the business and, in particular, the position of the employees. Under the Act, he has 14 days from his appointment to decide whether to adopt contracts of employment. Where the business is continued with a view to its successful disposal, it hasbeen the practice of administrators formally to notify employees that, while they would continue to be employed by the company and to be paid their wages and so on, their contracts of employment would not be adopted by the administrator.
In the event of the survival of the company or a successful sale of its business, employees would continue with the company or the purchaser and their contracts would be maintained. If, however, the administrator concluded that survival or safe was not possible, he would, as was done in the Paramount case, have no alternative but to dismiss employees. The administrator would, of course, expect to pay employees' wages or salaries for the period of their employment under the administration. But, before the Paramount judgment, it was not thought that other payments, such as pay in lieu of notice and redundancy pay, would have priority.
The result of the Paramount judgment, subject to the outcome of any appeal by the administrators to the House of Lords, is that the entitlements arising out of dismissal would rank on the cessation of the administration as a first charge against the assets in the administrator's possession. This would place them in priority to all other claims against those assets.
At first sight, this may be thought to have advantages for employees. In practice, however, administrators will feel that they have little alternative but to dismiss the company's work force within the first 14 days and either close down the business or look to new terms of contract. Employees' rights in such circumstances in relation to termination entitlements will rank only as a claim with other creditors.
Indeed, the real position may be far bleaker. Because of the weight of the claims that would arise on dismissal and which would be a first charge against the assets, companies considering administration may conclude that it does not offer a rescue route and may simply move to liquidation, termination of the business, dismissal of employees and a break-up sale of the assets which will not be in the interests of anybody.
It is also necessary to deal with the position of administrative receivers. There are 3,000 receiverships in this country every year. In almost half of them, it has proved possible to save all or part of the business. This practice will be placed in jeopardy, with all that that means for jobs, commercial activity and business confidence. We must, therefore, remove this uncertainty as a matter of urgency.
Accordingly, I intend to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity that will enable an administrator or a receiver to adopt a contract of employment with more restricted effects than at present. The change will allow him to adopt the contract with the effect that only wages, salaries and pension contributions falling to be paid thereafter will qualify as expenses of the procedure. Other liabilities arising from the contract of employment will remain, but will be treated as an unsecured claim against the company.
As regards administrative receivers, in addition to the need to limit the extent of the expenses that have priority, it is intended to restrict the receiver's personal liability to the same expenses as for administrators. What that means in practice is that the administrator or receiver will not have to renegotiate contracts of employment within 14 days from the date of appointment.
The proposed change will have only the limited effects that I have described. It will not affect the employee's position under employment law.
In view of the immediacy of the need for this legislation, I propose that, when enacted, it will have effect in relation to any contract of employment adopted after today. I am sure that the House will recognise the need for the measures that I have proposed and that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to see them brought in at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Robin Cook: I welcome the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has made a statement on a ruling that has caused alarm to receivers and to some of the unions that represent the work forces most at risk. We accept that it is plainly impossible for receivers to provide a business plan to rescue an enterprise within 14 days, and that the effect of the ruling will be to oblige them to close the business rather than to try to trade out of bankruptcy.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is perhaps particularly important for the Government to remove the threat to receivers as total bankruptcies are still running at the rate of one every 90 seconds of the working day and no longer show any signs of reducing, despite all the promises of recovery?
In the circumstances, we will not resist the proposed legislation, but will the President clarify three points that arise from it? First, for the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that any legislation that takes effect from today's date will not remove the legal rights of Paramount Airways' employees or of any other company put into receivership before today's date?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is genuine bitterness among workers who, after many years of loyal service, are made redundant by a company in receivership and who receive only statutory redundancy, despite an entitlement to much more under their contracts? Before introducing legislation, will he therefore review the limit on statutory redundancy pay, which is still based on a maximum wage of £205 per week? Is he aware that last


year was the first for a decade in which that statutory limit was not uprated and that it now sets a maximum that is well below the average wage of industry?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman circulate his warm words about the success of receivers, which I endorse, to his ministerial colleagues, particularly those with responsibility for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, which in the past five years have achieved a staggering fourfold increase in the number of companies that they have put into bankruptcy? Almost always, those companies were wound up straight away; they rarely went into receivership.
Now that the President has rescued the function of receivers, will he remind the tax authorities that it is in everyone's interest, including their own, that businesses should be kept as trading enterprises rather than put out of business by the Government?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) welcomed my proposals and for his assurance that the official Opposition will in no way obstruct the rapid progress of legislation through the House.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he sought in response to his first question: there will be no change in the legal position before today's date. From midnight tonight, my proposals will affect new arrangements, but will not upset previous ones as we are not indulging in any sort of retrospective legislation.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of much wider issues. My right hon. Friends in the Department of Employment and in the Treasury will no doubt read with interest what he said. I think that it would be wrong for me to widen the narrow suggestion that I have put to the House.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on taking such speedy action but for which a large number of firms that might have survived would have undoubtedly gone to the wall and have been abandoned and many thousands of employees would have lost their jobs? Therefore, does he agree that it is essential that hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in maintaining employment and helping firms to survive allow the Bill the speediest passage through the House?

Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and to the officials of my Department and a number of other Departments who have worked through the weekend to bring us to the point at which we could make the statement today.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, very much welcome his prompt statement today? There have already been announcements in the past week and during the weekend of receiverships that would have been banded into liquidation and jobs would have been lost. I must echo the view of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) that it is vital that the Bill goes through quickly and urgently and that all hon. Members support it and recognise that it is an issue of jobs. Nevertheless, will he confirm that, when he brings forward the legislative proposals, he can guarantee that where a receivership is successful in bringing a business to its ultimate sale the rights of employees will be fully

safeguarded? That assurance is necessary as people would want to know that, if the receiver is successful, they have the right to share the net benefits of the receiver's success. How many receiverships in administrations lead to a successful onward sale? We still have far too high a level of bankruptcies and not enough successful rescues.

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. Of course, he is right: the proposal has behind it the real chance of saving many more jobs. In answer specifically to the question about the number of receiverships that are, in practice, likely to be successful, may I say that it appears to be approaching half which lead to on-going opportunities for companies concerned. The existing rights, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, for example, would not be affected by what I have said today. I am dealing specifically with the narrow aspect which I outlined in the statement.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: The speed with which my right hon. Friend has acted is welcome and will save many jobs in the future when receiverships occur from today's date. Does he agree that one of the problems of judge-made law is that it is retrospective? Will he give some indication of what the situation will be for companies for which receivers have been in place for more than 14 days already, and for receiverships over the past few years that have been concluded on the basis of the law as it stood before the Paramount judgment was the one with which they complied?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. I must consider the principle of retrospection and, as I have made clear to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the changes that I am proposing will come into effect only from midnight tonight, if Parliament legislates in the way in which I hope that it will. The specific answer to my hon. Friend is that the law will remain what it is until the process of change comes into effect at 12 o' clock tonight.

Mr. Terry Davis: Given the importance, not only of saving as many jobs as possible but of providing as much compensation as possible to people who lose their jobs after years of loyal service to companies that go into receivership, does not the President agree that it is a good opportunity to improve compensation rights for redundancy?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be an abuse if I were to try to use the expedited processes which I am asking the House to consider for anything other than the most narrow of purposes which justify asking Parliament to move at such speed. There are plenty of other opportunities for my hon. Friends to consider the wider issues in a timely way.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeking to preserve the system of receivership, which has saved tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs in high-profile cases such as Leyland DAF and Rolls-Royce plc, as well as in many smaller receiverships. Does he agree that 14 days would be too short for any potential purchaser to carry out a duly diligent investigation when he is thinking of buying a business from the receiver and that liquidation and jobs losses would be much speedier if he had not acted this afternoon?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I join him in paying tribute to the work of extremely professional receivers in finding ways to keep businesses going and seeking negotiations which, as we have said, happily are successful in a high proportion of cases. There have been some very well-publicised events recently, perhaps most significantly that of Leyland DAF, but there are others. We are all in the debt of the very skilled men and women who carry out that work.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a bit rich for a Minister who has just sacked 31,000 miners to be telling us that he is concerned about employees' jobs after 15 years of Tory rule and when 4 million casualties are looking for work. Will he answer this question? If the Major Government go into receivership this summer through lack of support, will he act as administrator?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will realise that the people who lost their jobs in the coal industry received very generous redundancy terms which were far in excess of those available to the vast majority of people. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the fact that unemployment is now falling.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's very prompt statement, may I put it to him that it is important that, in the medium term, we have a thorough review of insolvency law because the present bias towards the banks and away from trade creditors, much of which is built on case law, provides a very strong disincentive for unscrupulous bankers to put companies into receivership and instead to place them straight into liquidation?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has a particular interest in the subject. We are consulting at the moment on the wider issues that he raises. The consultation period is due to end on 31 March and we will then be able to reach what decisions are appropriate.

Mr. John Gunnell: Having asked for a statement during business questions last Thursday, I thank the President for making it today. I hope that any questions that I put to the Leader of the House in future will receive such a speedy response.
Does not the judgment of the Court of Appeal reveal that the drafting of the insolvency legislation was inadequate?
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that several important receiverships are on-going. The present situation covers half the receivership and the Court of Appeal judgment, which one hopes will be appealed against in the House of Lords, while the other half will come into effect

at midnight tonight. What will happen in the case of constructive receiverships, such as that at RFS Doncaster, which are on-going at the moment and in respect of which vital jobs are at stake?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier reply when I said that I am not seeking to change the law retrospectively. The law is the law and receivers will have to make up their own minds, in the light of their best judgment and best professional advice, how they continue the receiverships in which they are already engaged. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point about the inadequate original drafting, I could not for a moment consider the possibility that anything that this Government had done was in any way inadequate. Nevertheless, on mature reflection, we have decided to have another look at it.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing legislation forward and on not being tempted to wait until the House of Lords gave its judgment. However, will he now give a very clear signal to receivers currently investigating companies that it is the will of the whole House that the legislation should go through and therefore their actions should not in any way be influenced by the Paramount case?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. I am aware that there is one case—there are probably others—in which receivers are under pressure to reach judgments because of the near expiry of the 14 days. I have asked officials to consider how we can draw the attention of such receivers to the statement that I have made this afternoon.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In view of the stress and strain that is put on families and workers by receiverships, and of course the inadequate drafting that has been referred to, can the President of the Board of Trade assure the House that he will consult widely as a matter of urgency, and especially consult the Trades Union Congress, prior to publishing the Bill? Can he tell the House when he intends to publish the Bill?

Mr. Heseltine: The House realises that there is a dilemma about consulting widely on such a matter where urgency seems to be so important. There is bound to be an opportunity for people to make representations. We will publish the Bill and the House will then be invited to consider it speedily. We will do our best to take account of representations from any sources where people wish to make them. I do not have a specific date because that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I have given the clearest indication I can that the Government consider this to be a matter of great urgency.

Points of Order

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I should like your ruling on a matter arising from the private Bill being promoted by the London Docklands development corporation.
The main purpose of the private Bill is to enable the development corporation to make byelaws covering the use of the former docks and the areas surrounding them. The Bill would give additional powers to the Secretary of State for the Environment relating to those byelaws, and they may seem appropriate for inclusion in a private Bill. However, clause 22 of the Bill would, I think extraordinarily, empower the Secretary of State to dispose of all or part of the assets of the London Docklands development corporation without any further reference to the House.
The most recent published accounts of the London Docklands development corporation show that the value of its assets exceeds £1,200 million. That is an enormous sum of public money which was put into the hands of the London Docklands development corporation under a general public Bill. Surely the power to give away those assets, which belong to the taxpayer, should not be smuggled through in a private Bill. This is not a private matter—it concerns a huge sum of public money.
I want to know why the Secretary of State for the Environment was allowed to include this public matter in a private Bill and how the House can safeguard the interests of the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised the question whether clause 22 of the Bill is a proper provision to be included in a private Bill. In the past, the Speaker has ruled that certain private Bills presented to the House should not proceed to a Second Reading because their principal provisions involved matters of public policy or conflicted with the general law. That ruling can be found at pages 804–805 of Erskine May.
However, there are precedents for provisions in private Bills giving the Secretary of State powers relating to the transfer of the property and functions of the promoting body—for example, section 10 of the British Waterways Act 1983. I cannot therefore rule that clause 22 of this Bill is not proper to be included. Of course, it is open to hon. Members to argue on Second Reading that the powers are too wide or that the relevant orders should come before the House. There are no petitions against the Bill, and the Bill has completed its passage in the House of Lords. It will be for the Committee on Unopposed Bills now to consider what amendments may be necessary.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Obviously, I accept your ruling and bear in mind the precedents. However, I am led to believe that the precedent that you quoted did not involve such an enormous sum of money or the possible gratuitous disposal of assets totalling as much as £1,200 million.
I should like to know your views on this matter, Madam Speaker. I understand that the authorities of this House, including the Speaker's Counsel, and those of the House of Lords look at such Bills to see whether their provisions are appropriate. It seems strange to me and to many of my hon. Friends that your advisers and those of the Lord Chancellor

did not suggest to the promoters of the Bill that, at the very least, they might have provided in the Bill as originally drafted that such transfers could not take place without the prior consent of the House by a debatable order.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank you for your ruling. You may have expected that some hon. Members would refer to the matter during the debate, and it may be that something will emerge from that. Whatever may emerge in terms of the procedures in the House for which the Bill at the moment does not provide, is it your ruling that the Committee on Unopposed Bills can also consider whether, even with the safeguards, such a provision in a private Bill affecting the powers of a Secretary of State who has established the corporation and who has the power to dissolve it is in order in terms of the relationship between private and public legislation?

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill wishes to make a point.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry that I was not here when you began to deal with the point of order, Madam Speaker. I was alerted by your Secretary and by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I am the hon. Member who is promoting the Bill. This is a point which has emerged late in the day. Advice has been taken, and will be available to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other colleagues at 7 o'clock when the Bill is due to have its Second Reading. The advice that you have given already will be taken into account, Madam Speaker, and there may be further information available later. I ask hon. Members to be patient. I understand that the issue is important, but the point was neither raised nor spotted earlier. The purpose of the procedure is to give the House a chance to see whether such issues arise.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In reply to the latter point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, the answer, of course, is yes. The matter can come before the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am raising a point of order similar to that which I raised on Friday. There have now been three mortar bomb attacks at Heathrow airport, which is, more or less, in my constituency, and yet I still cannot get an opportunity to get the Home Secretary to appear in the Chamber to make a statement. I understand and respect your decision with regard to my previous point of order. It seems strange that the whole country is talking about the busiest international airport in the world being under threat. Discussions are taking place in the press and among Opposition Members on the lack of security—I do not believe that to be the case—and yet I, the hon. Member who has the airport in his constituency, have no way of raising the matter in the House. I find that deplorable.

Madam Speaker: I believe that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) wishes to make a similar point.

Mr. David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I preface my remarks by


saying that I totally understand and fully support your ruling on my request for an emergency debate? I seek your guidance. Sunday's mortar took off from and landed in my constituency, and my constituents therefore rightly expect me to inform the House that the last thing that they want is a knee-jerk over-reaction. The other thing that they would want the House to know is that they have absolutely no intention of being bombed into submission by evil psychopaths. How on earth can they make that view known to the House? Perhaps you will give me some guidance, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have raised their points of order and for the support which they have given to the Chair. Right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench have no doubt heard the strength of feeling which has been expressed today. I think that we had better leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I informed you that I wished to raise a point of order because I am being treated differently from other hon. Members—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have exchanged correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, and I asked him to see me. He did so, and I hoped to be able to explain the procedures of the House to him. I asked also a senior Officer of the House to try to help him to understand the way in which our procedures operate. I received a letter from him on Friday which I am now reading and to which I shall be replying. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise points of order on those matters. I have taken weeks to try to help him with the procedures of the House.
The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on Friday. He must give me an opportunity to read his letter and reply to it. The matter does not constitute a point of order. I explained that this morning to the hon. Gentleman. Officers of the House have also tried to be helpful. I have given him a good deal of time. My door is open to the hon. Gentleman if wants to see me again. However, unless he understands the procedures of the House, it will be extremely difficult. He is still unfamiliar with them. If he wants to come and see me again, my door is open and I will willingly go through them all with him again.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Llew Smith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order. I am moving on to the point of order from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

Mr. Smith: It is because of the discussions that I have had with you, Madam Speaker, and the assistance from your colleagues that I am raising the point of order. I am discriminated against—

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no discrimination against the hon. Gentleman. I have attempted personally to explain to him the procedures and to do everything that I can to help him. I am still willing to help him if he does not understand. He is unfamiliar with the way in which we proceed in the House. The hon. Gentleman can take up my time as Speaker at any time that he wishes, but he cannot abuse the procedures of the House by raising points of order which are not points of order.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Monday, I raised with you a question about the then imminent decision of the Government on the blocking minority rights which arise under article O of the Maastricht treaty. You said that you would consider the matter. I am grateful to you for that. However, the matter is still under consideration. As there has been no debate in the House because of the nature of the instruments in question, will you consider taking a private notice question for tomorrow on the matter? Apparently, the decision has not yet been taken. The decision so vitally affects the interests not only of the House but of the country that we deserve at the least an opportunity to put questions on a statement and to have a debate on the matter.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman has already explained, I looked into the matter after he first raised it. If he wishes to put in a private notice question to me tomorrow, of course I shall consider it seriously, as I always do. However, proposals for changes in voting procedures in the Council of Ministers are not founded on European Community documents of the type that are subject automatically to our procedures. Nothing out of order has occurred. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to secure a debate on the issue, as well as putting in a PNQ to me, he should make his request known in the usual way.

ESTIMATES DAY

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94

Class VII, Vote 1

Housing Corporation

[Relevant documents: second report from the Environment Committee of Session 1992–93 on the Housing Corporation (House of Commons Paper No. 466-I and II) and the Government's response thereto (Cm 2363)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £213,686,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, improvements and investments, payments to the Housing Corporation, payments to commute loan charges on grants to local authorities including the urban programme and urban development grant, and other sundry services.—[Sir George Young. ]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I know that estimates debates are not necessarily the most gripping of the matters that come before the House, Madam Speaker, but you will know as a student of political history that they are key to the powers and privileges of the House because the scrutiny of Government policies and expenditure is the heart of the House of Commons. I take seriously the Select Committee's responsibilities with regard to that function.
We have devoted two or three evidence sessions every year to hearings on the Department of the Environment estimates and annual reports. We have produced a report on each of the subjects. By that means, the Committee has tracked the progress of the Housing Corporation for several years, noting its triumphs and difficulties and following its development as the funding and regulatory body for non-local authority social housing in England. About 15 months ago, my colleagues on the Committee and I judged that the time was right to launch a full-scale inquiry into the activities of the corporation. The Committee's predecessors had resolved to do that, but, for one reason or another, it did not seem right to have a full investigation at that time.
The inquiry that we held and the report that came out of it marked something of a return to housing as a subject for the first time for some years, although, of course, we looked at some aspects in our annual estimates hearings. At least those in the Department's environmental and countryside divisions, who had had the focus of our spotlight on them for some 10 years, were able to retire, albeit temporarily, into the darkness while we looked at housing.
The key is for a Select Committee to consider a balanced range of issues. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee for their non-partisan, consensus approach to the inquiry. If a Committee is effectively to bring issues to the attention of the public and the House it can best be done by co-operation. Together, we were able to agree conclusions that did not lack bite or duck the issues, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction will agree. Apart from the work that the Select Committee put into the report, I must

also pay tribute to the two men who advised us during the inquiry—Richard Best and Peter Chapman—who gave us sterling guidance, which was most helpful.
During its inquiry, which lasted from February to April last year, the Select Committee questioned 16 groups of witnesses, visited housing association developments in Leeds, rural Yorkshire and east London, and considered 140 written submissions. Since I read every page of those submissions, I can confirm that they contained much high-quality evidence, not merely from housing associations and interested bodies but, in some cases, in movingly written notes from members of the public and tenants. We did not need to travel overseas because the Housing Corporation is a peculiarly British animal—a public sector body which funds and regulates a disparate collection of private sector organisations.
I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I proceed by summarising the main proposals in the Committee's report and in each case comment on the responses from the Government and the corporation.
We began by considering the relationship between the corporation and its sponsoring Department—the Department of the Environment. The Housing Corporation is a quango and is therefore quasi-autonomous, whatever that means. Some people told us that the corporation was a creature—usually a poodle—of Government. No one told us that it was too autonomous.
The Committee's view is that under the out-going chairman, Sir Christopher Benson, to whom I pay tribute, the corporation behaved in a correct but unpoodle-like manner. The Committee was given a copy of the corporation's top secret corporate plan. Frankly, we were surprised at its tone. Sir Christopher and his colleagues did not shrink from giving strong advice, whether it was welcome or not.
The Committee felt that the relationship between the corporation and the Department was about right. The corporation spends a lot of public money and is rightly closely supervised in that. As a non-governmental organisation, however, it must remain free to express its views on policy matters—but only in private.
When people first learn that the Housing Corporation's corporate plan is not published they are surprised, given the huge sums of public money involved. The frank advice to which I referred is partly the reason why it remains a private document. The Committee felt strongly that the plan should be published, as a contribution to the continuing public debate on social housing. The Government did not feel able to accept the Committee's recommendations, for reasons that I understand, but the corporation has at least been able to produce its first three-year statement of plans and priorities.
That statement is effectively an agreed version of the corporate plan, without the discussion of alternatives that characterises the latter, but retaining an encouraging tone of frankness. The statement is certainly more useful than the annual report, which has not been terribly useful to anyone who has taken a close interest in the corporation's work. The Housing Corporation should be congratulated on producing its new document. There can be no doubt that future editions could be improved by greater openness and more discussion of the relative merits of policy options.
Openness is also required in the appointment of the corporation's board which, in the Committee's view, did not fully reflect the breadth of experience desirable in such an organisation. I therefore welcome the recent


appointment of new members with experience of housing—in one case, a local authority housing manager and in another, a housing association tenant. The fresh perspectives that those new board members will bring will be of great value to the corporation and to the Government.
The announcement last Tuesday that Sir Brian Pearse, the chief executive of the Midland bank, is to succeed Sir Christopher Benson as chairman, is also to be welcomed. I trust that Sir Brian will continue his predecessor's robust approach to his work. I think that my right hon. Friend has brought off a considerable coup in managing to secure the appointment of Sir Brian Pearse. There is absolutely no doubt that the relationship between housing associations and those who are increasingly financing them will be of key importance in coming years.
The Committee gained the impression both at first and at second hand that, at regional level, the corporation works effectively as a partner of housing associations. Like many partners, the corporation can at some times be a little interfering and bossy and at others less helpful than some would wish. In most respects, however, it is supportive and effective. We suggested some improvements, such as aligning the corporation's regional structure with that of the Department and seeking feedback, through a consultative process, with local interests. In each case, the Government responded positively, for which I am grateful. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to inform us of progress on realignment, especially as it affects London and the home counties, and on the twice-yearly consultative meetings, which I understand may start as early as next month.
Important as it is to get the structures and personalities right, there are other, more important issues that the Committee identified. The first is the question of housing association grant rates, together with affordability of rents and availability of private finance. The Committee recognised, as do most observers and those more closely involved, that those apparently separate considerations are in fact interwoven and interdependent. As the Government quite properly seek to contain public expenditure and attract a higher proportion of private capital into the development of social housing, so they must face the likelihood that housing associations will find it increasingly difficult to secure their loans, that many of them will find it necessary to increase their rents and that, at the end of the chain, increasing numbers of tenants will find it ever more difficult to escape the protective embrace of housing benefit.
Whether we term that state of affairs somewhat emotively "the poverty trap" or whether we characterise it as housing benefit dependency, the effect is the same. The Exchequer necessarily spends vast amounts of public money on housing benefit, yet everyone—including those in receipt of the benefit—wishes that it were otherwise. The Committee did not pretend to know how to resolve the dilemma of how to provide an affordable safety net without, at the same time, creating a disincentive to work, but all Members were as one in calling on the Government to get on with tackling the problem. It is surely in no one's interest that we should continue to subsidise that powerful deterrent to self-betterment.
Therefore, I was disappointed that, in their response, the Government were apparently content to refer to the

existence of an inter-departmental working group that discusses such issues "on a regular basis". Having heard nothing since of the discussions of the group, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister what is being done to counter housing benefit dependency and, in particular, to investigate the relationship between HAG rates, rent levels and benefit entitlement?

Mr. Den Dover: I have read the report with much interest, and note its concentration on tenants and their importance in housing associations. Did the Committee consider secured, as opposed to assured, tenancies, and what direct measures can be taken to bring down tenants' rents to a more manageable level?

Mr. Jones: I think that the two issues are slightly separate. We certainly addressed the former issue, albeit tangentially. The latter issue depends very much on addressing the relationship that I have just described.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has exercised delicate judgment in setting HAG rates for 1994–95 at 62 per cent. I know that the announcement was not universally welcomed but, in revising the original objective of a cut to 60 per cent., my right hon. Friend has shown that he is willing to listen and reconsider. So far, and despite the small reduction in HAG rates announced my right hon. Friend, the great majority of housing associations appear to have been able to continue to raise private finance for development.
It is worth repeating here the Committee's concern that
if the Government waits until a funding crisis arrives, any action it then takes may be too late.
Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take a long-term view and, in particular, that he will consider seriously the need to set housing association grant at a level that will enable associations to avoid running out of loan security or finding that they are no longer able to raise money from private institutions?
The second major issue that I wish to raise is that of standards. There are two quite separate concerns here. One relates to standards of housing provision and the quality of the accommodation that associations provide and the other to standards of housing management. On the former, I do not count myself among those who mourn the passing of the Parker Morris standards, which applied to all public sector housing. However, if they build houses that are inappropriate to people's housing needs and aspirations, housing associations will run the risk of replicating some of the social problems that have arisen as a result of the misguided policies of the 1960s and the 1970s.
Therefore, I welcome the recent evidence of a shift towards the rehabilitation of existing property and away from new build, not least because such property is likely to provide tenants with more space and better facilities as well as address the issue of urban regeneration.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Government are encouraging the rehabilitation of property and everyone would accept that that should be achieved. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that in areas where property is of extremely low value, such as in the north, it is difficult for either an owner-occupier or, for the very same reason, a housing association to invest properties that are worth less than the cost of those improvements?

Mr. Jones: One of the experiences that I have enjoyed in the House has been my period of common service with the hon. Member on the Select Committee on the


Environment. One of the facts that I will retain until my dying day is that the problem to which the hon. Member referred exists in places such as Burnley. It needs to be tackled in the broad context of urban regeneration, not just through housing association grant but through our approach to home improvements. That is absolutely key to solving the problem.
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House whether the Government now accept that rehabilitation offers several important advantages over new build'? Does he intend to increase still further the proportion of rehabilitated property? On the subject of specialisation, the focusing of housing association work not just on rehabilitation but, for example, on the disabled, other specialist groups and rural housing is extremely important and welcome.
As for standards of management by housing associations, the Committee learnt that those vary widely. Such is also my experience as a constituency Member, because I have known excellent housing associations and also pretty poor ones. I suggest that that experience is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement last week that the Department is to fund the Institute of Housing's good practice unit for the next three years.
One of the unit's first tasks might be to consider the evidence that the Committee received, which suggested that small, local associations are more popular with tenants than the larger, national ones. Some of the latter came in for strong criticism because of their remoteness and lack of responsiveness. Some evidence, however, suggests a trend towards ever-larger associations, whether through merger or large-scale transfer of local authority stock.
Some large housing associations have an excellent record, either because they really care about delivering quality maintenance or because they have been organised in such a way as to overcome the argument about remoteness. The Paddington Churches housing association, for example, has a development in my constituency. People were naturally worried about a housing association that had its headquarters in Paddington. They have overcome their concern because the association has established an office on the estate to which people can go with their problems about maintenance or queries about their rent. The Sutton housing trust also has its headquarters in my constituency and it has an excellent record of attentiveness to the problems of its tenants.
Do the Government accept, as the Committee has, that a diverse housing association movement, encompassing a range of providers meeting specialist or general needs at local level, represents the most attractive and effective option for enlightened housing management? If so, what can my right hon. Friend say tonight to reassure those who fear that the Government's policies will lead to the creation of even larger, more remote landlords?
May I ask my right hon. Friend, purely from my point of view rather than that of the Committee, whether he has considered the scope of rent officers, given the increasing number of assured tenancies? I wonder whether the jurisdiction of rent officers over housing associations is appropriate any longer and whether it might be better for rents to be set by housing associations, obviously after consultation with their tenants.
Thirdly, I wish to mention tenants' rights, which emerged as one of the main themes of the Committee's inquiry and was the subject of the concluding chapter of

our report. In all the discussion of bureaucracies, finance, policy initiatives and so on, it is all too easy to lose sight of the fact that the Housing Corporation, housing associations and associated paraphernalia exist to provide a service not to Government, not to Parliament, but to tenants.
The Committee met and spoke to housing association tenants during its inquiry and received written evidence from several more. Although no national organisation was able formally to represent to us the views of all tenants, we heard oral evidence from the Tenants' Participation Advisory Service, an organisation with which I was extremely impressed.
I think that we gained a pretty good idea of what tenants want. In addition to affordable rents, to which I have referred, tenants want access to information, a prompt and effective repairs and maintenance service, to participate in decisions that affect them and to know that any complaints will be dealt with fairly. The news on all those fronts is good.
In their response to the Committee's report, the Government promised that the corporation would seek the views of tenants as part of its monitoring of associations' performance. The corporation also undertook to monitor more closely associations' performance on repairs and maintenance and to improve associations' performance on tenant participation. To what extent have those fine words resulted in action? What feedback has been received from tenants about the effectiveness of the measures announced in the Government's response to the Committee's report?
The announcement that a tenants' ombudsman would be appointed preceded the Committee's inquiry but was not divorced from it. In our report, we had much to say about the way in which the proposed service should be constituted and should operate. Although I understand the difficulties involved in proposing primary legislation, I am disappointed that the new ombudsman is not demonstrably independent of the corporation. I wish Mr. Jeffries well and it is to be hoped that he will prove his independence in practice, but I and my colleagues were worried lest confidence in that important service be dented due to its close association with the corporation.
With his characteristic fairness, my right hon. Friend the Minister left the door open by promising to keep the new service under review and to place it on a statutory footing, should that prove necessary at a later date. Perhaps he would expand a little on that statement tonight and tell the House how he proposes to review the work of the ombudsman and when he expects to decide whether to legislate.
No right is more important to tenants than the right to buy. The situation pertaining to charitable housing associations remains unacceptable to me and to many Conservative Members. I know that in the more enlightened charitable housing associations there has been a growing realisation that they are causing themselves as much damage as they are the tenants because, inevitably, they are driving the most motivated and ambitious of their tenants to leave their estates and to find their homes outside. That is not good for the community, it is not good for the housing association and most assuredly it is not good for the tenant. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will send a clear message to the other place that people who own more than one house should not stand in the way of the aspirations of ordinary people who are tenants of charitable housing associations.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I have listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which faithfully followed the course of the Committee's consideration and report until he reached the last point, on which I recall no recommendation of the Select Committee. I think that he should make it clear that he is expressing his own view, rather than the view of the Select Committee, on that subject.

Mr. Jones: I am happy to underscore that because not only is it my view, but, over the years, it has been one of the points that have most characterised the differences between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. We believe in the aspirations of those people who wish to buy their homes, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
I could go on at greater length, but I think that many Members wish to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to consider the work of the Housing Corporation and to acquaint the House with the important work of the Environment Committee. I am also pleased to be able to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his constructive approach to the inquiry and his helpful response to the report. However, there remain some items of unfinished business. I warn my right hon. Friend that today's debate marks only another stage in the process and that, in the best tradition of the Environment Committee, we shall follow up our report before the dust of Marsham street has settled on his files.

Mr. John Fraser: The Select Committee inquiry has done a service in focusing on a subject that is, in my view, of great economic and social importance. It is of economic importance because, at least in London—housing problems vary in different parts of the country—the capital cannot work efficiently unless there are affordable homes for those who work and receive moderate incomes. I am thinking of people employed in transport, education, health and other essential services; people begining their careers, who cannot yet afford to buy homes; and those who are training—often after university—and are still on moderate incomes.
I shall concentrate, however, on the social importance of housing, to which the Committee referred. We do irreparable damage to the fabric of society by gearing housing in a way that adversely affects the construction of society and the preservation of values. There is, for instance, something very wrong with a society that does not enable people to live near their parents. Enormous social reinforcements are provided when grandmothers can look after children and do some babysitting and other members of the family can provide a stimulus. That is an important ingredient in the health of the inner city.
It is equally important for parents to live near their own parents. Like many other Members of Parliament, I am visited every week by people who ask why their elderly mothers, aunts or other close relatives cannot live with or close to them, where they can be taken care of, rather than having to live in expensive old people's homes, sometimes unhappily.
Housing policy, albeit unintentionally, is not just breaking up families but making self-help and sustenance from within the family impossible. That is certainly happening in my borough. It is difficult to rebuild an inner city when the children who grow up successfully there

cannot afford to live in the area—near their parents—and must move away. Rebuilding inner-city society depends on values as well as bricks and mortar; one reinforces the other.
There is a further dimension to the social aspect: social housing must be truly affordable for those who work or want to return to work. We need to provide housing that is not a trap and does not create a poverty ghetto. What I find offensive is an apartheid in housing, based on social and economic status.
There are examples in my constituency, where housing has been built on reduced grant for assured tenancies. We are building homes with gardens where people cannot afford to buy a spade; we are building homes with picture windows and greater floor space, where people can hardly afford curtains and carpets. Children are being brought up by parents who have 'no money to provide any social stimulus, entertainment or holidays—all of which are important to the growing-up process. We are building housing that imposes heavy penalties on those who want to return to work, to stay in work or to gain promotion.
Let me illustrate the problem by referring to some recent building by housing associations in my constituency. New three-bedroomed homes have been built: the rent is £70 a week, in addition to council tax, charges for heat and lighting—soon to be taxed—and water rates. Let us take the example of a person who is in work, but whose spouse is not; they have two children, aged 12 and four. If that person's net income is £125 a week—about £150 gross—he or she will pay no rent, being very close to income support levels. If he or she receives an extra £1 in pay, they will lose 65 per cent. of it in a taper on the loss of housing benefit and 20 per cent. in the taper on council tax benefit. Thus, the result of an additional £1 a week will be a net gain of 15p.
Let us take another example—a person with the same family structure but earning £175 a week net. That person's rent becomes £38.05 a week—22 per cent. of a low income. If he or she starts to move up the salary scale, every extra £1 earned will result in the loss of 65p in housing benefit taper and the withdrawal of 20p in council tax benefit—leaving 15p. That is a hell of a loss of benefit for someone earning only £175 a week.
The penalty goes on and on. The figures are not substantially different in the case of a single-parent family and they are very much worse in the case of a single parent who has to pay for child care. Thus, people of moderate income are financially pinned into the home. Despite what has been said about rehabilitation and about concentration on the building of new estates, they are also corralled geographically. We are beginning to build houses with basements again. But they are proverbial basements. They are poverty basements, out of which it is very difficult to climb to the next floor. Such is the housing that is now being constructed with housing association grant.
In a way, the position is even worse than that. Because of the indicative costs, and because of the uncertainty of the cost of converting a street property, housing associations—at least those in my area—are buying fewer properties for rehabilitation. Here we have another reason for the greater difficulty. Every time an individual property is bought, one is up against the private financial bureaucracy that housing associations now have to face. People have to cope with increasing isolation and are not securing the street properties that they want so much.
If I sound very pessimistic about the new type of housing on assured tenancies, my pessimism is increased by the fact that what is happening, in terms of the poverty trap, to the new assured tenancies—properties built with reduced grant—is happening also in the case of the older housing association properties that were the subject of secure tenancies, with rent control by the rent officer. The Milkwood estate in my constituency is run by the London and Quadrant housing association. That association applied for a rent increase, as, under Housing Corporation procedures, it was obliged to do. It asked the rent officer for an increase of £12 a week, but the rent officer decided on a figure of £14 to £15 a week. Typically, those tenants have had their rents increased from £37 to £51—a rise of 37 per cent. at a time when, for example, people who work for a local authority have had their income frozen.
The same kind of trap is being constructed in the case of the older housing association estates. The rents under private assured tenancies are dragging up those under secure tenancies. The cure is reproducing the complaint. As we try to eradicate the problems of the 1960s—I am thinking of housing problems associated with poverty and with the poverty trap—the Government are driving down the grant and pushing up rents under assured tenancies. Thus, we see the creation of exactly the same phenomenon as prevailed in the past.
And the prospects are even worse than that, I am afraid. It is not just that housing association tenants have to suffer penalties and disincentive. The situation can only get worse as the grant, which at one time was 80 per cent., comes down to 55 per cent. We know that the Government have massacred council housing. During the last Labour Government's final two years, the average rate of building social housing was 120,000 houses a year. The number is now down to 11,000, which is why I refer to the massacre of council housing. It is no wonder that the level of homelessness has gone up. It is not being replaced—

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, I shall not give way. We are short of time.
Housing is not being replaced by housing association production, which is running at only 21,000 homes a year and is set to decrease according to the Government's projection of its expenditure.
The Government are creating a greater handicap for housing associations in three ways. The first is caused by cuts. Tulse Hill school in my constituency was knocked down—the Minister will know it well from his time as a councillor in Lambeth—and the site was bought by a housing association to provide homes for 160 people. It lies idle this year and will be idle for the next financial year because the Government have run out of housing association grant, even at reduced rates. It is disgraceful that we have the land and building workers available, but we cannot get on with building houses in an area which has a high level of homelessness.
Secondly, the Government are imposing—

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I said that I shall not give way.
The Government are imposing a form of financial cannibalism on housing associations. Associations are having to charge their reserves and existing stock, but the

time comes when they can no longer eat their own flesh which, in financial terms, is what they are being asked to do. There will be a point at which private finance will say that there is no more security left on the balance sheet on which it can lend.
Thirdly, private finance is beginning to get nervous about the housing association movement. I do not want to be overly pessimistic, but it is getting nervous because it is looking in part to security that is gradually running out and to what is called the rent stream. On the newer housing estates in my constituency which I have described—they are typical of those in the rest of the country—there is not a rent stream but a housing benefit stream. The Department of the Environment does not have complete control over the housing benefit stream and will eventually come up against the golden rule of politics which is, "It can only go on for so long." I give examples of that rule: it was true of the powers and rights of trade unions—the Government said that they could only go on for so long; it has been true of local government expenditure; and it is true of housing benefit. As rents go up, as grants are reduced, as the poverty trap tightens and expenditure on benefits goes up, the Treasury will one day—

Mr. Warren Hawksley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No, I shall not give way.[Interruption.] Many hon. Members wish to speak and I shall best serve my colleagues by getting on and finishing my speech as quickly as possible.
Eventually, housing benefit expenditure itself will be challenged, which will create a great deal of nervousness in the City, among the building societies and banks, many of them foreign.
I am sorry to close on a pessimistic note. I have only one piece of optimism, which is that the golden rule of politics may yet help me out: "It can only go on for so long" must also apply to the Government.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am very glad to be called to speak. I must first declare an interest as my wife is chairman of a housing association—

Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I too, should have declared an interest as I belong to a firm that advises some housing associations. I apologise for not declaring it at the beginning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I an grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: My interest is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I declare an interest as my wife is chairman of a housing association and a member of the Housing Corporation.
This is an important issue which was brought to my attention by a group of ladies who came to my advice bureau some time ago. They represented various religious beliefs and wanted to talk to me about housing. As my wife knows more about the subject than I do, I twisted her arm and made her attend the advice bureau with me. We listened carefully to the ladies who spoke with great sincerity and were clearly very concerned about people less fortunate than themselves. We all agreed on one point—the


vexed question of affordable housing. I have raised the matter in the House before and I will continue to raise it because it is so important.
Some time ago, the Select Committee on the Environment warned of the serious consequences if the housing association grant should fall below 67 per cent. In fact, it has fallen to 62 per cent. today. The problem is that with less grant, housing associations have to borrow from the private sector and as a consequence, rents tend to rise. The net result is that we get rents that are not affordable by low-income households, and that causes great concern.
I am told that in the north-west of England, housing association rents for new homes are nearing market rents. The consequence is—this point has already been raised in the debate—that there are people receiving housing benefit living in those homes because they can better afford to live on the new estates. I am told that on some new estates in the north-west, as many as 95 per cent. of properties are let to tenants who are on housing benefit. They are often single parents with young children.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is giving serious consideration to the £9 billion that is spent on housing benefit. Nobody can blame him for that. After all, the social security budget is the largest budget of any Department and housing benefit is the third largest item in the social security budget. It is exceeded only by the state retirement pension and by income support.
If the amount that we spend on housing benefit had been fairly constant for years, one could understand leaving it alone, but the fact that it has risen dramatically in recent years and has now reached £9 billion has led my right hon. Friend carefully to scrutinise it. However, I sometimes wonder whether there is any co-ordination between the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security and the Treasury on such issues.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend considered two factors that may affect the affordability ratio? First, there are now far lower interest rates than was the case hitherto and, secondly, with construction costs that are far more reasonable than they were at the peak in 1988–89, it is possible to build and refurbish houses far more cheaply than before.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I accept my hon. Friend's point. The fact that interest rates are far lower is beneficial, although it does not alter the fact that there are still too many people who find it difficult to get housing that they can afford. That is the point I am trying to make.
One of the recommendations of the Environment Select Committee is that the Government should try to develop a strategy for easing the problems faced by housing association tenants and others caught in the poverty trap. As rents increase, the disposable income of tenants who are not receiving housing benefit drops and the possibility of the poverty trap increases.
The National Federation of Housing Associations has defined affordability. It says that affordability exists if the majority of working households taking up new tenancies are not caught in the poverty trap because of dependency on housing benefit or because they are paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income on rent. The association

stresses that rents are not affordable when more than 50 per cent. of working tenants are either caught in the poverty trap through being dependent on housing benefit or, if not on housing benefit, are paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income on rent.
I do not want a growth in the dependency culture. I want to encourage people to stand on their own feet—that was one of the things that drew me to the Conservative party. Of course there are people who we must look after, such as the sick, the elderly and the disabled. However, I want to ensure that young people are encouraged to find work rather than believing that the state should provide for them.
I worry about the people who try to help themselves, such as those who take low-paid jobs and then find that they might have been better off if they had not gone out to work because they would have been more secure financially with benefits. It cannot be right, it is nonsense and economic madness for someone to be better off by not going out to work than by looking for a job. We must also think about the children who are brought up in such an environment. What sort of life will they have if they can honestly believe that they will be better off by not working than by seeking work? That is an example of initiative being penalised.
Thrift by the elderly is also penalised; I make no apology for returning to the matter yet again. All of us must know of elderly constituents who, during their working lives, have put money aside, who have done without things and who have saved for the proverbial rainy day. They find that when they retire, their thrift is used to penalise them. As the rules currently apply, people with capital of between £3,000 and £16,000 find that interest is assumed—"assumed" is the all-important word—at the rate of £1 a week for every £250 of capital. As I have said before, I wish that some kind person would offer me such terms because I would transfer my savings immediately and I would live happily ever after.
What incentive does the scenario I have described give to anyone to save? For years, I have repeatedly posed that question and I have never had an answer. I hope that I shall get an answer today. I should like an assurance that the ridiculously high assumed rate on savings will be considered urgently.
Good housing is vital. As a nation, we can take pride in the fact that we have eliminated the awful slums that were such a blot on our industrial areas years ago. However, I often wonder whether we were wise to build the multi-storey tower blocks and to build the great council estates that sprawl on the outskirts of towns and which took people away from where they had lived as part of a community.
We might have been better off spending money on the Coronation streets of this world—the old terraced houses which were well built. If we had only spent some money on modernising them and on making them more pleasant for people to live in, people would have been happier because there was far more community spirit there than one experiences today. However, I realise that there is no point in harping on about what happened in the past. Instead, we must try to ensure that we get things right in the future.
The construction industry needs a boost. I am told that about half a million construction workers have lost their jobs over the past few years. If the estimate that every unemployed person costs about £9,000 per annum is right—that is the amount paid in benefit and the amount that is


lost in taxation—a great deal of money is involved. If we could get those people back to work, there would be a tremendous boost to the economy. We desperately need more low-cost housing.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 850,000 empty houses in this country? That translates into about 1,000 empty houses per constituency. Would he not rather those empty houses be brought back into use than more and more new houses being built over the green fields in his constituency?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I watched him speaking effectively on this very point on television yesterday. I think that he said that Manchester city council was just about the worst in the country for unoccupied houses.

Mr. Hendry: Second.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Second?

Mr. Raynsford: Westminster.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I do not think that Westminster is top of the list. The hon. Gentleman should verify his facts before he interrupts.

Mr. Tony Banks: You do not.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am sorry; I did not hear.

Mr. Banks: You do not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Sir Fergus Montgomery.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have your protection from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
By reducing unemployment, we would help the building industry and we would rehouse people who are in urgent need. I hope that we would also do something about homelessness. I get depressed at the sight of all those people sleeping rough in our cities today. There are, of course, many reasons for that. Some are there as a result of divorce and broken homes; divorce has increased enormously over the years. Young people tend to leave home far earlier than they did and that has caused problems. Whatever the reasons, I hope that we can do something to try to solve at least part of that problem.
I praise my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction. He does a great job in housing in the Department of the Environment. He is one of the most caring Ministers and he has earned enormous respect from people in the housing association world. However, I end by making the plea that the Housing Corporation is given adequate funds to enable housing associations to provide housing at affordable rents for people who are desperately in need.

Mr. David Rendel: This morning, I took the opportunity to attend a meeting of Newbury district council's annual housing forum—an excellent institution which has proposed a number of good ideas in recent years—where I spoke to the council's housing manager and asked his advice on what I should say in the debate this afternoon, were I lucky enough to be called. He said that he could summarise what I should say in just two words:

"not enough". He said that there was not enough in terms of the approved development programme, not enough in terms of the proportion of housing association grant allowed for housing association schemes and not enough cheap rented accommodation.
If it is true that there is not enough of those things in Newbury, how much more must it be true that there are not enough of them in deprived inner-city areas.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is playing true to the form of members of his party, who frequently castigate the Government for not spending enough and, once the Government do so, then say that they are spending too much. Is he aware that total spending on housing of the type that we are discussing has risen by about 60 per cent. since 1988–89 and now stands at about £12 billion a year?

Mr. Bendel: I hope to show that, in practice, if the Government spend more on housing it is likely to pay for itself and that, therefore, whatever the Government are now spending, it would be beneficial to put more money in.
The housing manager to whom I spoke said that it was wrong for the Government to place more emphasis on shared ownership, for which there is limited demand: only a certain number of people can benefit from that form of tenure.
I recently visited a new housing association being built in Basingstoke by Wimpey, whose people kindly took me round the estate and showed me the different forms and sizes of housing and different forms of tenure. They told me which of the forms of tenure had been the easiest to fill. Interestingly, they said that the hardest to fill was shared ownership accommodation. When I asked why, they said that the answer was obvious: much of shared ownership costs more than outright purchase or renting, which is why people are unwilling to take it. A move towards more shared ownership, therefore, will have only limited applicability in trying to solve our housing crisis.
To a large extent, I welcome the emphasis on rehabilitation in the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. We should all like the standard of housing in this country to be raised. Much housing is in far too poor a condition nowadays and there are many advantages to be gained from rehabilitating older housing stock wherever we can. But a balance should be struck.
There is no point in putting all available resources into rehab or new housing. We must get the balance right. As long as the Government do not go overboard on rehab, I would welcome any moves to put money into that part of the housing movement.
The Government claim that they wish to spread their resources more widely by reducing the amount of housing association grant to each housing association property. One can understand their reasons for wanting to do that, but here again there is a danger in going too far. If Government resources are to be spread more widely, more money will be needed from the private sector and, as has already been said, there is a limit to which the private sector will be prepared to meet its share of housing costs.
Obviously, the more housing sector finance is demanded, the more rents of such housing will rise because interest on that finance will have to be paid. In addition, the larger the proportion of the money from the private sector, the higher the interest rate is likely to be, because the private sector will wish to have a higher interest rate if the risk is large. Clearly, there is a point at which it becomes


counterproductive to continue to lower the percentage of housing association grant into each housing association property. The Government's new proposals go beyond that point.
What will happen? Rents will inevitably rise and much housing will no longer be affordable. At the same time, the Government's proposals on homelessness will push more homeless people into the private sector, where rents will also increase, leading to more dependence on housing benefit.
Housing benefit is due to be capped. Somewhere, we shall come to a crunch point. Sadly, for various reasons, many people are losing homes that they have owned for a long time. For instance, people lose their jobs or face difficulties with the Child Support Agency. If they are vulnerable—for example, they may have young families—they will be housed by the local council and the costs of that housing will be met by housing benefit.
When such people find another job, they may be worse off. Even in the present situation, with people being housed in comparatively cheap rented accommodation by local councils, they may face difficulties in paying the rent. For the many who are housed in private rented accommodation at higher rents, the problem will be exacerbated. I foresee a difficulty because if someone loses their job and then their house, they will be rehoused, but if they find another job, they may lose their house again. The Government are leading us into the position whereby people can either have a job or a house, but not both. I am sure that that is not a position which the Government will wish to endure.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of repossessions has been falling significantly in recent months? Will he pay tribute to the efforts of lending institutions in achieving that? Does not he accept that the housing market is on a stabilised, if not improving, trend?

Mr. Rendel: I accept that there are some signs that the housing market is picking up. We have yet to see whether that will benefit or harm those who need cheap rented accommodation.
The Government say that the housing benefit tapering system will ensure that people cannot lose their house and their job. The problem with the taper, however, as I think all housing professionals accept, is that it is much too sharp. That is why people are often better off remaining on benefits than getting a job.
The tapering effect is 85p in every pound just on housing benefit and council tax, but when one takes on a job one may have extra expenses—for example, with the CSA or because of the costs of travelling to work. With the taper as sharp as it is at present, one may be better off remaining on benefit and not getting a job. We need an integrated tax and benefit system, but were Ito discuss that now I should stray wide of the subject of the debate.
I commend two aspects of Government housing policy. The first is their living-over-the-shop initiative, which, if implemented across the country, would contribute a great deal to solving homelessness. It has many advantages. Shopkeepers can gain income and security for their shops. It can bring life back into the town centre and lead, therefore, to crime prevention. It can offer convenient places to live for young couples who have no children, or

perhaps elderly people, who often do not have transport to get them into town centres. I was proud to have promoted that policy long before the Government took it up and I was especially proud recently to have been able to open a scheme of that sort, as the housing spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, in my constituency in the centre of Newbury. Now that the scheme has been launched, it will encourage other people to open similar schemes. That scheme was for six flats and it has already been indicated that we may be able to get 12 more flats next door in the near future.
The second aspect of Government policy that deserves some praise is mentioned specifically in the Select Committee report. It said:
We believe that, if and when there is a depressed property market, the Corporation should be ready to put in place a programme for acquisition of existing, unsold houses … The housing of homeless families in property integrated into the community as a whole may represent a more constructive approach than the growing concentration and segregation of such families on newly-built estates.
I certainly agree. The Government's response was:
The Government believes that the Housing Market Package in 1992–93 was very successful.
There were faults with that package. It involved no new money. Money was simply brought forward from future years—that was a pity—and involved mainly the purchase of new homes on large estates which could otherwise not find a buyer.
However, there are many benefits to the scheme. It makes purchase under the right to buy less risky. Many people are unwilling to purchase their own homes because they fear that they may never be able to sell them again. If that scheme were renewed, it would clearly give housing associations a chance to take back those homes and thus make it less risky for tenants to purchase their own homes.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on the housing market package about which he was so disparaging? It enabled 18,000 homes to be purchased in 93 days, admittedly at a cost of £577 million brought forward from future years, when the housing market was especially depressed. Therefore, surely it encouraged the housing market to recover quicker.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I was saying that that was one of the two aspects of the Government's housing policy of which I approved. Perhaps if he had listened more carefully, he would not have bothered to intervene.

Mr. David Alton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a city such as Liverpool, where there are some 13,000 empty properties—some 7,000 in the private sector—there is a desperate need to use such properties to assist people who will not only drift away from that city to the south of England, but who are homeless?

Mr. Rendel: I entirely agree. Indeed, it was one of the benefits that I was about to mention. One of the benefits of that system is that it allows housing associations to spread their properties throughout a community and thus leads to less of a ghetto-type situation, which we are moving towards.
It is also true that it is a quick way in which to bring more cheap, rented accommodation into the housing association sector. In spite of the difficulties of buying a house in this country, it takes a lot less time to buy a house


that is on the market than to build a house from scratch. At present, housing is comparatively cheap and we need to use that sort of a scheme before the housing market takes off again. How sad that the Government's response went on the say:
The Government has no plans at present to repeat the initiative.
When they do something right, it is a pity that they cannot carry it through for a longer period.
In housing, the Government are their own worst enemy. Failure to invest in housing leads to rising homelessness, to fears about queue jumping—the cause of their latest document—to increases in housing benefit, which is a cause of worry to the Treasury, to a deepening of the poverty trap and to lower work incentives. The answer is two-fold. First, we must release the receipts from council house sales for further council accommodation and secondly we must have more direct Government investment in housing. Housing investment often pays for itself. Poor housing can lead to families breaking up; indeed, it is one of the most common causes, with all the involved costs to the Government.
Housing investment can lead to lower benefit costs, better social conditions, less vandalism and other crime and more stability, especially for families with children, whose education will benefit as a result. We are discussing the level of housing investment by the Government. To use the words of Newbury district council's manager, which are echoed by almost all those professionally involved in housing and by councillors of all parties in local authorities throughout the country, the present level of Government investment in housing is simply not enough.

Mr. Barry Field: Without wishing to be a founder member of the mutual admiration society, it should be incumbent on myself or at least somebody on the Committee to pay a tribute to the chairmanship of the Committee which produced the report. Many pundits in housing and in politics generally thought that the subject was a minefield and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) guided us through it excellently. In our press release when the report was published, we said that it showed that a controversial subject, such as housing, need not necessarily lead to a Select Committee being bogged down in some of the problems that we have seen elsewhere in the House. It is certainly a long-held tradition of the Environment Select Committee that it strives for some consensus in its reports because it believes that they pack a greater punch as a result when they arrive on the Minister's desk.
Many of us have experience of housing and for some of us it has been a great joy. I share the happy distinction with the Prime Minister of having chaired a housing committee, although he seems to have done rather better than I have. One of my happier housing stories was that of the archetypal little lady who had several piles of rubble outside her back door and her front door, which seemed to be alarming her neighbours. The housing manager of the local authority went to see what was the problem and discovered that, single-handedly, she had knocked down all the internal supporting walls in her house so that when one opened the front door, one could look straight through to the back door and the kitchen. When asked why she had done it, she said that it was to give the budgie more room when she let it out of its cage to exercise.
There is nothing more personal to all of us than our homes and that is why the report and the work of the Housing Corporation is so important. My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee has already welcomed Sir Brian Pearse, whose deputy chairman, Peter Cook, was appointed the other day by the Secretary of State. I questioned the outgoing chairman, Sir Christopher Benson, on a particular point. I made the point in Committee that there would not be a company with which Sir Christopher was associated which would not introduce an age debtor scheme to the board of directors. I was therefore rather surprised that Corporation does not require or report to the Minister the length of time that housing associations hold on to cash, liquid assets, without reinvesting them. I ask the Minister to consider that specific point. I know that it was something of a soap box issue of mine during the compilation of the report, but if the housing association movement stands for anything, it is for the provision of low-cost housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) said. It is essential to make assets work hard and to invest in housing stock. There are a few housing associations—not many—who seem to accumulate the loot but do not invest it.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that that point is indicative of an attitude, which some Select Committee members noted, of the Housing Corporation—that its audit role is seen as being more that of accountant than of adviser? Perhaps in future the Housing Corporation should consider putting more effort—it already makes some—into the dissemination of good practice and giving guidance to housing associations on better management practice.

Mr. Field: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I recall that, in the evidence that we heard in Committee, several housing associations felt that Sir Christopher's regime in respect of financial reporting—of which there was very little or none before his arrival at the Housing Corporation—was rather onerous.
My experience as a chairman of a housing committee and as a director of a building society and of various other financial posts tells me that if we do not get the finances right or the debits and credits in order, nothing else flows. In respect of taxpayers' money, we must get the finances right and the debits and credits in order. I know of no business or organisation that got into trouble when its finances were properly managed and reported upon. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) in that regard, but that brings me to my next point. There is no doubt that Sir Christopher did a great job reforming the reporting structure and tightening up the way in which associations operate generally.
My next point was not included in the Select Committee report—we could not include everything that we wanted to. However, I believe that the Chairman shares my view that there should be three levels of audit function on the part of the corporation, depending on the size of housing associations.
I have referred to three levels, but that number is arbitrary. Perhaps there should be four or five levels. However, if we consider the example taken by the Department of Trade and Industry for auditing companies, it is clear that there are various points with which they must


now comply in the way that they report. The smallest companies can even dispense with the services of their auditors. Companies of the next size up can have abbreviated accounts. Full-sized companies must have the full works. There should be a small, medium and large structure for housing associations' requirements.
Some of the smaller associations made a fair point when they told the Select Committee that there was a feeling that a sledgehammer was being used to crack a nut. I hope that that point might yet commend itself to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction.
My next point has already been referred to by the Chairman of the Select Committee. During Environment questions the other day, I paraphrased Shakespeare to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, saying that we want
Sir George for England and for housing tenants."—[Official Report, 16 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 937.]
We want a right to buy for housing association tenants.
I have been working with the North British housing association which, to recap briefly, took over the Greater London council's seaside homes when the GLC was quite rightly abolished. It was a moribund and useless organisation if ever there was one. In those days, the Liberal Democrats on the Isle of Wight concentrated entirely on politics and not on progress.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Field: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment if he will allow me to finish this point.
The very first housing committee and council committee meeting that I attended as candidate on the Isle of Wight, debated the transfer of the GLC's seaside homes. As committee chairman, I had done a deal with the GLC for the transfer of the GLC homes in Horsham. Those homes were financed for a very nominal increase in nomination rights.
The Liberals on the island went on and on about the fact that if the Government wanted them to acquire those properties, the Government should make the money available through the Housing Corporation or whatever. If the Liberals had concentrated less on the politics and more on progress, they could have had those houses for the benefit of the people of the Isle of Wight.
Those houses went to the North British housing association, which has not commended itself to its island tenants. I have had some strong correspondence with its chief executive, Eric Armitage, who has tried to bamboozle me about the nomination rights for the properties concerned and on the opportunity for those tenants to purchase their properties. I will give way now to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall pick up on that later.

Mr. Field: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I like it when he picks up points from my speeches.
The North British housing association had refused to allow several tenants to purchase their properties. Let us be quite clear about this. We are not talking about the right to buy in terms of discount. We are talking about the fact that the Minister has legislative power to allow those tenants to purchase their properties where those properties do not have specialist functions and are not warden assisted, but are stand-alone properties. A small number of the tenants

have the money to buy their properties and it is quite wrong that my hon. Friend the Minister and the North British housing association should stand in their way.
Of 41 tenancies that have been allocated over the past five years, 29 went to London borough nominations, six went to internal transfers within the seaside and country homes lettings, and the Isle of Wight received just five nominations—which is why I say that the Liberal Democrats sold the Isle of Wight so badly down the river by not taking up that opportunity—and the housing association nominations for tenants living in the Greater London area amounted to just one.
I am concerned about the way in which the North British has operated because, on its estate in Wootton, there is a small ransom strip of land which gives way to a quite valuable building plot. The association consulted its tenants about whether to sell that ransom strip which would have accommodated only two dwellings. The tenants said no, so the plot remains growing weeds in the middle of that housing estate.
I have no objection to that. However, I cannot marry up the housing association consulting its tenants on the sale of that ransom strip with the fact that it obdurately refuses to allow some of the tenants to purchase their properties, which they would dearly like to do.
I do not wish to finish on that sour note, particularly in view of the plaudits received by the Environment Select Committee's report on the Housing Corporation. I will finish on a more positive note. In Committee, we were assured that a housing ombudsman would be established as soon as possible and we felt strongly that the ombudsman should be independent of the Housing Corporation. However, the Minister told us that primary legislation is required to make the ombudsman independent, so as a pro tem measure, and to ensure that the housing ombudsman was available very quickly, it was set up under the aegis of the Housing Corporation.
One of the great difficulties in the housing association world was the liquidation of the Legion Leasehold housing association. I am told, although I have not had this confirmed, that the ombudsman has taken up those concerns and worries and the tenants of Birch close at East Cowes are pleased about that. That good news story has arisen from our report. I am absolutely delighted and, may I say—not in a trite way—very proud to have been associated with the report because I believe that it is a major contribution to the housing debate in our country.

Mr. Tony Banks: I should tell Conservative Members that it is a pity that there is a Pavlovian response or knee-jerk reaction whenever someone mentions the Greater London council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There it goes again—as if its abolition was all good. If one consults Londoners, one would find that two thirds of Londoners, according to the latest opinion polls, have said that it is a great pity that the GLC was abolished and that London needs a strategic authority.
If Conservative Members do not want to believe me, they should believe the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who made it clear, in respect of London's Olympic and Commonwealth games bids, that there is no way in which London will ever acquire international events like that because there is no one to sign


on the dotted line on behalf of London as a whole. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) should not assume that it has all been gain so far as London is concerned. That is not how we see it.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred specifically to the seaside and country homes initiative of the GLC and the London county council. Only a strategic authority could have carried out such an initiative. That initiative gave elderly Londoners, particularly those in the east end, the opportunity to go to a part of the country where they could breathe the air rather than chew it first to enjoy their retirement. No one does that now. When the GLC was being abolished, we warned the Minister who is now Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction that transfer to the North British housing association was likely to prove to be a bad thing for the former GLC tenants. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight is now proving that point.

Mr. Barry Field: My point is that the Greater London council was the greatest piece of political gerrymandering that the nation has ever seen, costing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to reinforce the Opposition vote in a number of Conservative-held borough councils such as Hastings.

Mr. Banks: If we are talking about political gerrymandering, we need look only at Westminster to see what it has been doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on the Housing Corporation. Perhaps we could come back to that now.

Mr. Banks: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am only responding to the points made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight in his speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have now blown the whistle, so we should get back to the debate.

Mr. Banks: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say with the greatest respect that it is a great pity that the whistle was not blown a little earlier. However, I understand what you are saying.
I welcome the report. In Newham, we are particularly dependent on housing associations. The London borough of Newham, works very closely with the East London housing association, London and Quadrant, the Family housing association and Circle 33. As more and more pressure is put on the local authority's housing stock, we are especially indebted to the housing associations for their ability to provide for single people when there is no statutory obligation on the part of the local authority.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman speaks with knowledge and some feeling about his constituency. In what way would his constituents be better off if the £11 million of council rent arrears in Newham were collected and redistributed to the people whom he represents and the councillors were elected to serve?

Mr. Banks: I suppose one could suggest that that question is not relevant to the report, but I shall answer it because Mr. Deputy Speaker has not ruled it out of order. The answer is that they would be much better off.
It is not as though the London borough of Newham is not taking all measures to get the rents. No one wants rent arrears. We do not encourage rent arrears in the London borough of Newham. However, the hon. Member for

Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) should realise that, for example, 69 per cent. of all council tenants in Newham are in receipt of housing benefit, which shows the level of poverty in my area. In 1992–93, 97.2 per cent. of all rents were collected by the London borough of Newham. If the Government were 97.2 per cent. successful in terms of running the country, I suspect that they would have a much better standing in the opinion polls than they do at present.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: rose—

Mr. Banks: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, but there are other hon. Members who want to speak.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Of course, rents cannot be collected from vacant properties. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comment to make about the 400 empty properties which are currently standing idle in Newham and which could be serving local people?

Mr. Banks: Of course there are empty properties in the London borough of Newham. A much greater proportion of them are in the private sector than in the public sector. In the London borough of Newham, we do not deliberately encourage people not to pay rent, or deliberately set out to keep properties empty. I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, because I can assure him that in my borough we take all the steps we possibly can to, first, collect rent and, secondly, ensure that there are no void properties.
One of our problems is the inability to spend the sort of money that we want to spend on bringing unfit properties up to a state of decent habitation. There are many, empty properties in the London borough of Newham with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not soil his hands. He certainly would not want to go and live in them and therefore we should not expect other people to do so. The hon. Gentleman touches me on a raw nerve.
I return to the point that I was trying to make with regard to the report. Paragraph 157 states:
We recommend that assessments of housing need—whether expressed as a range or as a precise figure—should be published by the DoE, using widely accepted methodology, on a regular basis.
The Government's response, which I thought was very disappointing, was that there is no single accurate figure estimating the potential demand for social housing.
One of the things that the Government should do is take far more pains to discover the extent of homelessness in my borough and, indeed, in London as a whole. We do not know the accurate figure with regard to homelessness in London. We do not know how many people are sleeping rough on the streets. The Greater London council used to collect the figures. However, now that it has gone, the Department of the Environment is not particularly interested in doing so. The Department always works on the assumption that if the statistics are not collected, ergo the problem has gone away. Of course, we must now rely on organisations such as the Salvation Army to know how bad the problem is.
As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir. F. Montgomery) said, it is distressing to walk round London and see so many more people living rough on the streets. That is the important point. It is not anecdotal evidence—it is the evidence of one's own senses. Tory Members know that to be a fact. I know that some of them are very young and wet behind the ears, and know very little about


what goes on in London, but surely even they must have appreciated, when they were brought up to London in their earlier years, how many more homeless people are on the streets of London now. Whatever the figure, it is greater than it was in 1979, and that is the indication that I go by. It seems that the Government—

Mr. Thomason: rose—

Mr. Banks: I think that it would be best if I did not give way. I am more than happy to give way to Tory Members, but I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to fall foul of the Deputy Speaker.[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) thinks that I am afraid of him, I shall give way.

Mr. Thomason: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am especially grateful when he refers to some of us as being young. I hope that that included me, as I think that I am roughly the same age as the hon. Gentleman.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of vacancies in the private sector in his constituency and housing pressures. Can he tell us what action his party would propose which would bring into greater use some of the private sector accommodation to remove the very straits about which he is complaining?

Mr. Banks: As the House knows, I do not speak as a party spokesperson, so my comments are without authorisation. There is much that we could do. We could go into compulsory purchase in the private sector, especially with properties that have been vacant for a considerable period. It is offensive for homeless people or those living in particularly straitened circumstances to see houses that have been empty for such a long time, whether they are publicly or privately owned. That is one thing that could be done, and I would be very much in favour of doing it. Of course, I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor would say that it could be done only when resources allow.
I return to the report. It is a great pity that the Government are not prepared to look more closely at housing problems in London and collate figures and statistics in such a way as to make them understand the difficulties that people face. The right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir. G. Young) is often given the reputation as a decent, humane and warm-hearted Minister. That is a fairly rare accolade for anyone on the Government Front Bench these days. However, he should pay perhaps a little more attention to what is going on in Tower Hamlets at the moment, which is under the control of the Liberal Democrats.[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will pay a little attention to what I am saying.
My late and much-lamented dear colleague, Ron Leighton, who died recently, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State about Tower Hamlets adopting the policy of placing its homeless families in private rented accommodation outside the borough. The council was doing that to fulfil its statutory duties under the homelessness legislation. Ron Leighton made four points to the Secretary of State, including the fact that the London borough of Tower Hamlets
are predominantly using this for Bengali families.
He said that Tower Hamlets

are 'exporting' their homeless families and expecting the receiving authority to pick them up in future years, as well as provide education and social services support.
Families placed in this way were being charged up to £250 for a 3 bed house in Newham, an obviously inflated and unrealistic rent.
Of course, because such rents are above housing benefit levels, they lead to rent arrears and the problem then of people being evicted and made homeless, but homeless in the London borough of Newham. I quote:
Families are being given no choice in this exercise.
The Minister received a letter from the Bengali National Association in Newham which made precisely the same point. Mr. Osman Gali, the president of the association, said that up to
3–4 hundred families have been forced out of Tower Hamlets. The Council have adopted a policy of misleading the families by offering short-hold tenancies, and evidently the families were given false hopes of perm anent rehousing by the Council. Most homeless families who were already living temporarily in Newham, Waltham Forest, Hackney, Dagenham and other areas have been subjected to intense pressure by the Council officers.
The letter goes on to refer to instances of harassment from Liberals in Tower Hamlets. One does not need to look at the racism of the British National party in Tower Hamlets—the Liberals can provide all the racism one would need in that part of east London.
Mr. Gali also referred to "ethnic cleansing". That is an emotive phrase, but I get his point.
I now turn to paragraph 157 and how it relates to paying attention and collating statistics, which is why I am disappointed with what the Government have said in response to the Select Committee report. Baroness Denton of Wakefield, the Minister responsible in the House of Lords, replied to my late colleague Ron Leighton in terms of the letter that he had written to the Secretary of State. She said:
Authorities should look carefully at the terms on which the accommodation is being offered, and in particular at the landlord's intentions once the minimum period for a tenancy has passed. They should assure themselves that accommodation will continue to be available for a reasonable period, and should consider every case on its merits in light of the circumstances of the household they are placing. Where a household is placed in such accommodation in the area of another authority, this should be done in liaison with that authority … I would be concerned if one authority was consciously adopting a policy of transferring homeless households into another authority's area in the expectation that this would off-load any future responsibility.
That is precisely what Tower Hamlets is attempting to achieve, particularly with the Bengali families. The council is exporting them into other parts of the east end and transferring what they see as a problem to other areas.
The noble Lady went on to say:
we are watching developments with interest. We will consider whether there are any problems for us to address when we reform the homelessness legislation.
I hope that the Minister will say something about paragraph 157 and how he is responding in terms of monitoring the situation.
The leader of Newham borough council, Councillor Timms, has written on number of occasions to Councillor Peter Hughes, the Liberal Democrat leader of Tower Hamlets council, and he has not even had the courtesy of a reply. That is how rude the Liberals in Tower Hamlets are, so on top of racism they add on a large dollop of rudeness. That is typical of Liberals, who like to come here and pose as decent people when the reality on the ground is completely different. The word hypocrisy comes immediately to my mind when I think of Liberal Democrats here and in Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: As a resident of Tower Hamlets, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's views about the racism of the Liberals in Tower Hamlets and the appalling management of the council. However, exporting the problem of homeless families beyond a council's boundaries is not limited to Tower Hamlets. In my constituency, through both housing associations and local authority housing, that is precisely what the old GLC did, and what agents of some Labour authorities in London are still doing.

Mr. Banks: We are going back to the GLC, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under the mobility scheme, the GLC was able to give people a wider range of opportunities or a choice in terms of the location. It was, after all, the GLC and the London county council which provided substantial estates outside the Greater London area and on the periphery of that area. No one ever said that the GLC was exporting its problems, unless one thinks that giving a senior citizen the opportunity to move into a seaside or countryside home was exporting problems. If someone desperately wants that, why should they not have the opportunity when they retire? That can hardly be described as exporting problems. It was giving them the sort of opportunity which unfortunately they do not now enjoy and certainly will not enjoy until we have a strategic authority restored once again to the citizens of London.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will respond to the following points. I think that it is now necessary to have a ministerial inquiry into what is going on in Tower Hamlets. We have tried hard to work with the Liberal authority and we know they have housing problems. We all have housing problems in the east end, but we do not expect councils to take the dogmatic, disgraceful and racist attitude which Tower Hamlets has been taking in terms of its housing and the question of homelessness. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce that he intends to look critically and urgently at the terrible racist housing policies in Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Charles Hendry: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in the debate and particularly to follow the wide-ranging remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall start by declaring an interest, in that I am a newly appointed chairman of a company called Home Rent 16 to 23 plc, which is a private rented sector company.
I congratulate the Select Committee on the report and on the thoroughness with which it has gone about tackling a detailed and complicated subject. I particularly welcome the fact that the Committee decided to look into it in the first place. The basic fact is that this year some £1.5 billion of public money is going to the Housing Corporation, which will enable some 58,000 new houses to be built for letting. The Government's reduction of the housing association grant rate, and thereby the bringing in of money from the private sector, has enabled the building of a significant number of new houses that would not have been built had we relied purely on public sector funding. During the past five years, the increase is estimated at some 55,000 additional units of housing.
We must look at the balance between the number of houses that we want to achieve and the rent that is to be charged for those houses. The Government are absolutely right to say that we should be shifting the way in which

funding is contributed from subsidising bricks and mortar to subsiding the individuals who live in the houses. In other words, just because someone has a local authority or housing association house, it should not be built and provided for him at a below-average rent if he can afford to pay the realistic market rent. Those who cannot afford to pay that rate should be helped through the housing benefit system.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has left the Chamber, because he refused to take interventions during his speech. He was fundamentally wrong to look at the number of new houses that are built when we should be looking at the number of new lettings every year. We are concerned about the number of people who are able to move into social housing who would not otherwise be given that opportunity. The combined number of housing association and local authority lettings last year is the highest ever and is significantly higher than the number that applied in 1979 when the Government came to power.

Mr. John Battle: If the Government's policies for access to local authority and housing association housing go through, and as a result of that landlords use shorthold assured tenancies or six month lets, if the same family is in a place for two years, will not that count in the Government's statistics as four lettings, although no other family has been housed?

Mr. Hendry: I am more than happy to divert from the debate on the Select Committee report into the consultation document to which the hon. Gentleman refers, if you will allow us to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If the private sector is to be used—most of my hon. Friends agree on that as an absolute principle—inevitably we shall see greater use of short-term assured tenancies. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that a short-term assured tenancy can provide in many cases a better quality of accommodation than local authority housing and can also provide security. Many of us live in short-term assured tenancies and, according to the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has bandied about, we are considered to be homeless.
We must move from the negative attitude that the Opposition have continually taken towards the private rented sector and accept that it has a much more important role to play. One of the benefits that will result if the proposals in the consultation document are enacted is that there will be a better use of the private rented sector. In terms of the Housing Corporation and the money that is allocated to that, we must be certain that every penny of public sector money is being used to the best effect. The only way to do that is to squeeze the resources from time to time.
To make sure that they are lean and efficient and use their resources sensibly and effectively, private companies, from time to time, clamp down the hatches and tighten their belts. That applies equally to the Housing Corporation. If we are to continue to be sure that every year we can put more money into the Housing Corporation, we must first be satisfied that every pound and every penny that go into it and into housing associations are used to best effect. If hon. Members on both sides of the House ask themselves honestly, they cannot say with their hand on their heart that that is the case.
We have concerns about the administration and running costs of the Housing Corporation. The squeeze that it is going through will make it look carefully at how its money is used. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, we can reduce the current grant rate in view of two factors that he outlined clearly. First, interest rates are lower than we have seen for a considerable time so the money that the housing associations are expected to borrow can be borrowed much more cheaply.
Secondly, the difficulties that the building industry has faced in recent years have made it possible to build houses much more cheaply than for many years. That means that we can expect the housing associations to continue to provide a significant number of houses for letting. Indeed, there is no doubt that the 153,000 houses in the next three years to which we committed ourselves in our election manifesto will be comfortably exceeded, conceivably by as much as 25,000.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Does he agree that the fact that the Housing Corporation exceeded its targets last year has a great deal to do with the points that he has just made? Does he also agree that that will continue to play an important role in the funding and development of that part of the market in the years to come?

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly correct. The other element, to which tribute has already been paid, is last year's housing market package. It did much to bring back into use some of the empty properties available in the private sector. I am glad to see that the package has the backing of the Liberal Democrats.
I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about housing benefit. We need to be careful that we do not create ghettos that are the only places in which people on housing benefit can afford to live. If we are to have a balance and if the amount of money that goes into bricks and mortar is to be squeezed, we have to accept that there is a limit on how much we can squeeze housing benefit. That point emphasises that there must be a right to buy for housing association properties.
It is proper that the increasing number of people who live in housing association properties should have the same right to buy that they would have in local authority housing, if they wish to exercise it. Of course some sectors such as warden-controlled properties or properties specifically for the elderly need to be excluded. However, increasingly housing association developments are suitable for a much wider range of population. It is proper that they should also be bought under the right-to-buy scheme.
I am also pleased to see that more attention is being paid to rehabilitation programmes. I have banged on endlessly in the House about the need to bring back into use the 850,000 empty properties in Britain. I am astonished by the recommendation from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for bringing back into use properties in the private sector.
There are 750,000 empty houses in the private sector. We all accept that that is too many. However, the new policy initiative suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would involve taking the properties

back into public ownership under compulsory purchase. Assuming that the properties were bought at £20,000 apiece, which is a modest assessment, the hon. Gentleman has just developed a new Labour party policy that would cost £15 billion. No wonder he did not have the backing of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It is a barmy, barking mad idea and one which is fundamentally hostile to all the principles of freedom to which Conservative Members adhere.
Why do Labour Members come up with every excuse in the book when considering why properties owned by Labour local authorities are empty, yet wish to introduce the most draconian powers that they can think of to tackle the empty properties in the private sector? If one is an incompetent local authority, one has the backing of the Labour party, but if one is an individual exercising one's freedom, one does not: The message is, "Do not let your granny die without selling her house first." The little politburo people from the Labour party will come round and say, "The house is empty. The old lady is dying. We had better buy it under compulsory purchase."
We can bet one more thing for certain. Under the new policy suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, people would not get a market purchase price. They would get the least favourable price at which it was possible to buy the property. Then we would be looking forward to another Conservative Government at the earliest possible time to allow those properties to be bought back by the people to whom they rightfully belong.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the acquisition of council property the district valuer decides the price level, which could affect either the owner-occupier or the tenant? Does he not understand that?

Mr. Hendry: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West outlined his new policy involving compulsory purchase of empty properties in the private sector, although he did not elaborate on how his policy would work. Valuation may be done by the district valuer or it may simply be based on whatever price the hon. Gentleman cares to work out on the back of an envelope. Unless the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is willing to elaborate on his policy—sadly he is not in the Chamber now—we cannot know how it would work.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: In view of the confusion on the Opposition Benches about the compulsory purchase option canvassed by Opposition Members, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to make clear how the policy would operate in practice or to say that the policy is not a policy of the official Opposition?

Mr. Hendry: I am sure that it is not merely incumbent on the Front-Bench spokesman. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) will wish to outline his approach and that of the Front-Bench team to that policy development. I hope that he has the backing of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and will be able to say from where the £15 billion to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has just committed the Labour party will come.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the large number of empty houses in the private sector. He accepted


that it was too large and that he would like to do something about it. Does he also accept that some of the houses remain empty because the owners want to sell them but cannot find a buyer and that, therefore, one of the quickest ways of bringing those houses back into occupation is for the Government to continue to give money to the housing associations to purchase second-hand homes and put them back into the cheap rented sector?

Mr. Hendry: Clearly, we have a competition on the Opposition Benches for who can spend the most public money in the shortest possible time. Several initiatives designed to bring back into use empty houses in the private sector have already been introduced. To name just one, under the housing associations as managing agents—HAMA—initiative, housing associations can take over the letting and management of houses. So if people are worried about letting their property themselves, they can let it in a much more constructive and safe way than might otherwise have been the case.
A huge amount of money—the best part of £1 billion—went into the housing market package. Although I broadly welcome the package, one element that worried me was that too often housing associations went to a local builder and bought up all the houses on a newly built estate. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke of a desire to see those houses bought around the community. I welcome that, but it has not always happened. Too often, an entire estate is bought up, with the result that anxieties about the same sort of people living in estates can materialise.
I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to go back to Liberal authorities—particularly Tower Hamlets, which is one of the worst offenders in terms of sitting on empty local authority housing—with the same imagination and suggest that they do more to bring their empty properties back into use. Perhaps he could suggest some measures as draconian as those proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. For example, if people see local authority housing left empty too long, perhaps they should be allowed to buy it back from the local authority.

Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although Tower Hamlets council is desperately trying to bring back into use empty properties owned by the council, as a result of the Government's housing policies, the lack of finance coming through and the capping of local authority finances, it is impossible for the council to do so faster than it is now?

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking some basic facts. If Tower Hamlets were slightly better at collecting rents and the council tax it would not have that problem. If the council had not achieved an indebtedness to which some third-world countries can only aspire, it would be paying far less in interest rates and could spend that money on services for the community instead.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: My hon. Friend is being too generous to Tower Hamlets borough council. He has not mentioned its shambolic organisation of local services. Bureaucracy between the centre and the community, via all those neighbourhood councils, is slowing down lettings and administration and causing much of the problem.

Mr. Hendry: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. We know the sort of election tactics that the Liberal Democrats have had to resort to in Tower Hamlets to

ensure that they continue to get their constituents' vote in spite of the way in which they are running the local authority.
In recent years, housing in my constituency has improved significantly. The housing condition survey shows that people in the country as a whole are living in better housing than ever before. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister was able to visit my constituency last week to see the improvements being made on the Fairfield estate, where, under the estate action programme, money has been used radically to improve living conditions in nearly 200 houses. The estate was built in one of the coldest parts of my constituency, which is one of the coldest parts of the country. Even a duffle coat was scarcely enough to protect the Minister from the elements. Houses on the estate have been radically improved with better insulation and new windows and that has been possible only because of the money made available to the local authority under the estate action programme.
I was especially pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister used his visit to encourage people to take part in the rent-to-mortgage scheme, whereby they can change their rents into mortgages without paying a penny more. Their aspirations for home ownership can thus be met and it is an imaginative policy, for which my right hon. Friend should take much credit. People who aspire to ownership but are worried about the commitment involved in taking on a mortgage can gradually take over ownership of their property. I hope that my constituents will take that policy to heart.
I welcome the tenants incentive scheme to encourage people who live in local authority housing and housing association properties to take a cash sum to buy a property elsewhere. As the hon. Member for Newbury will appreciate, that is a boost to the private sector, as it will enable some private houses to be bought and will immediately make available additional houses in the social rented sector.
If we are to debate the subject sensibly—today's debate has been sensible—the distortions must be removed. It saddens me greatly that no organisation has done more to damage sensible discussion than the charity Shelter. I have been in regular contact with Shelter for some years, especially as chairman of the all-party group on homelessness and have built up a great respect for its work. However, the publicity material that Shelter is publishing now is in breach of its charitable status. There are clear guidelines on what it is acceptable for a charity to do and it is regrettable that Shelter has passed beyond that barrier. As that organisation receives £1 million a year in public funds, it has a direct duty—

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hendry: No. Shelter has a duty to ensure that it does not distort deliberately the facts and continually exaggerate. I have therefore written to the Charity Commissioners to ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware that Shelter is a housing association.

Mr. Hendry: Indeed it is not, but affordable housing is one of the issues that Shelter has been discussing most and it is also a core issue in the debate. If we want a sensible debate on affordable housing we must do without the distortions that Shelter has put about in its packs for


schools and letters to subscribers. It is important that we draw those distortions to the attention of the relevant authorities. In view of your comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not pursue the matter, but it is crucial that Shelter should be aware that its campaign has been rumbled and will not be further tolerated.
We must be aware of the amount of money that has been put into the Housing Corporation and housing associations. That money has enabled many more of our people than ever before to live in better conditions. It is a record of which the Government can be proud and I hope that it will encourage hon. Members to endorse the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and especially by his attack on Shelter. It is pretty despicable to attack an organisation for exercising its right to free speech, which I thought was a fundamental principle in this country. His attack is appalling and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, who represented High Peak with such distinction, would not have sunk to such an activity. It was unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman introduced such a note into the debate, as it had been useful and constructive.
I hope that the Minister will take rather more notice of the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery). I would not normally agree with the views of the hon. Gentleman, but his contribution was a clear warning to the Government that major problems will result if they insist on pushing housing association grant down.
I must pay tribute to the Select Committee's advisers, who served us extremely well, and to its officials. I join the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) in also paying tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who demonstrated that a Select Committee can deal with a politically controversial issue effectively without getting into the yah-boo of party politics. The Committee's report is a valuable contribution to the housing debate and the Chairman should take credit for that. Although I do not like praising Conservative Members, on this occasion I do so warmly.
In my constituency, the housing shortage is a fundamental problem. When I was first elected as the Member for the old constituency of Stockport, North, about 4,000 people were on the housing waiting list in the metropolitan borough of Stockport, but more than 8,000 people are on the waiting list now and the authority has fewer properties at its command because some have been sold. There are fewer homes to rent. Homeless people on the waiting list in Stockport spend far more time in hostels and bed-and-breakfast accommodation than they did for almost the whole time that I represented the constituency.
In Tameside, the situation is not as bad, because it has a larger stock of council dwellings and there is more private rented accommodation. During the years that I have represented that area, however, the position has got steadily worse.
One of the key facts in the report is that we are producing between 70,000 and 80,000 fewer dwellings than are necessary to meet the need. It does not matter how much the Government want to change their approach to homelessness; unless they deal with our failure to build sufficient houses, they will merely be changing the statistics and not the underlying reality. If, by the turn of the century, we are about 500,000 houses short, however much we change the definition of homelessness the position will get worse. It is essential that we build those houses.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale explained to the Government how crazy it is to add so many building workers to the numbers of unemployed, rather than giving them the opportunity to produce the houses that we so desperately need. I do not mind how the Government do it and whether they use housing associations or council building programmes, but I plead with them to deal with the shortage of dwellings, because until they do so, they will not solve the problem of homelessness.
I should prefer the Government to go for an approach that involves both housing associations and local authorities in doing some of the building. In both Tameside and Stockport, the local authority and the housing association have developed some very good partnership schemes whereby the local authority provides the land and the housing association does the building. That is clearly appropriate for some of the bigger sites.
In respect of three areas of my constituency, however, I do not believe that that is the right approach. The first area is Haughton Green, which has a substantial Manchester overspill estate. It is an extremely well-run estate, built in the 1960s and consisting of high-quality dwellings that are extremely well looked after. A couple of the tower blocks have problems, but the rest of the houses are much appreciated by the tenants. That estate was built on a plan that involved a great deal of open space. Some of that open space is useful for young people to play on, but some of it is not really usable. It would be possible for Manchester to build a small number of dwellings to infill some of those spaces. Whereas it would be complicated to set things up so that housing associations could put two houses here and two small bungalows there, it would be very easy for Manchester to do that infilling. I only wish that the Government would allow it to get on and do it.
The same applies to the Yew Tree estate in Tameside. Admittedly, that estate was built over old pit workings and some of the open spaces on the estate are probably necessary because of what is underneath them. But much of the open space on that 1970s estate is not necessary, and a substantial number of infill dwellings could be accommodated. Again, that would be a complicated process for a housing association to undertake. It would be far more logical to let the local authority build.
The third area of my constituency is in the Stockport part of my constituency at Brinnington, where several blocks of flats have been pulled down. Again, it would be far more logical to allow the council to build replacement dwellings of the type that people want than to insist on the task going to housing associations.
When the Committee started its inquiry, one of the big issues was whether the Housing Corporation would insist on a super-league consisting of a small number of housing associations, not showing much enthusiasm for small housing associations. It appeared during the inquiry that the idea of a super-league had disappeared. In a sense,


however, the Government are bringing the idea back by the way in which they are changing the grant levels. As they bring the grant level down, they make life difficult for all housing associations. But at least the big housing associations—those with a lot of existing stock—can share out the problem by increasing the rents of some of their older properties to cross-subsidise newer developments. But many of the small housing associations—especially those that I thought that the Government wanted to encourage, to deal with the problems of ethnic minority groups and people with learning difficulties, for example—will be disadvantaged.
Small associations designed to specialise in providing accommodation for those particular groups do not have the big stock necessary for cross-subsidisation. For those specialist housing associations, the reduction in the grant level is particularly harsh. The Government are returning to the idea of the super-league by insisting that grant levels come down. Moreover, as grant levels come down, so the poverty trap gets worse.
The Government have been chided about family values. On one or two of the housing association properties in my constituency, the Government, by the way in which they are setting the rules, are doing everything to destroy the family and to make it difficult for people to create new families. When the housing association offers dwellings to the local authority as agreed lettings, the local authority tends to offer those dwellings to people who are on benefits, because it does not believe that in my constituency people who are in work can afford the rents. The dwellings therefore go to people on benefits—more often than not, to women on their own with one or two small children, probably following a failed marriage or liaison.
The woman may quickly become involved 'with someone else, but there is absolutely no chance that that man will move into the house because the rent that he would then have to pay is so high as to make such a move prohibitive. The man may visit on a pretty regular basis and in some cases may take a considerable amount of responsibility for the children, but it is not a state of affairs which anyone should be encouraging and it has been created solely as a result of the existing benefits system.
If the Government are concerned to encourage people to establish new households, they must examine that problem. They must recognise that major difficulties exist in relation to the present level of dependency on benefits of people in those circumstances.
I want to refer briefly to the role of the ombudsman. I do not believe that the ombudsman can have any credibility as long as he functions within the Housing Corporation set-up. I think that it is a mistake to go on setting up ombudsmen for insurance, for banking and so on. It would be far better to increase the powers of the national ombudsman to cover all those areas.
Certainly as regards the Housing Corporation, it would be far better for the powers of the national ombudsman to take in the Housing Corporation and the housing associations rather than keeping them separate. I have received a considerable number of complaints about housing association property provided for the elderly and about the promises that were made about housing associations managing such property, especially in shared ownership schemes, to take away the worry. In many cases, the charges for providing the services have caused a great deal of concern.
I do not want to trade questions about empty properties across the Floor of the House today. I do, however, want to make a plea to the Government about empty properties. On three or four of the council estates that I know well, individual properties have been empty for six months and, in one case, for over 12 months. Those properties were bought by tenants under the right-to-buy provisions. Relatively soon afterwards, the buyers got into mortgage difficulties and the properties were repossessed by the building society. They have remained empty ever since. They are proving virtually impossible to sell.
The building societies are extremely reluctant to go on knocking the price down to dispose of them; they are hanging on in the hope that, at some stage, they will get the asking price. Some of those houses are pretty dilapidated. One of them was more or less vandalised by the owner before he moved out. They are detracting from the appearance of the estate and are making the council the subject of criticism, as many people think that they belong to the council and that it is leaving them empty, not realising that the estate agent's board, long ago knocked down, is lying in the garden.
It would be a simple matter for the Government to give local authorities permission to buy back properties on council estates and put them back into use. That would not involve a great change of policy and it would make a lot of sense. I should like the Government to allow local authorities much more freedom over their capital receipts. If they cannot give them that general freedom, however, I plead with the Minister to let the council buy properties back—especially the very small number of houses that were bought from the council and which cannot now be sold—and put them quickly back into use.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned the question of living over the shop. I advise him not to get too enthusiastic about it because some of the worst property to let in my constituency is over shops. It is often pretty appalling accommodation. If one is to live over the shop, the accommodation must be properly renovated to a high standard.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on his chairmanship of the Committee and on his report, which gives us the opportunity for the debate.
I should like to consider a number of paragraphs in the Government's response to that report, starting with paragraphs 31 to 34, on the role of the private rented sector. The report states:
The Government is keen to see a revival of the private rented sector … the Government will consider the case for further assistance to increase the supply of private rented accommodation".
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will give some idea of the Government's further thinking on exactly what is being proposed. He will be aware of the proposals in my pamphlet. He might consider that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which is currently in Committee, represents a convenient opportunity to table new clauses to allow tenants to select a new landlord without that landlord necessarily having to be approved by the Housing Corporation. That approval denies choice to tenants who wish to opt for a new landlord. Why can they


not choose their own landlords? Why should they have to seek the approval of the Housing Corporation or anyone else? That restriction should be removed.
If new lettings of council houses were offered on the basis of the Housing Act 1988, under assured tenancies, councils' ability to sell rented accommodation, if they so wished, would not be restricted.
The Labour party's current document on housing states that the private rented sector
badly needs a boost.
Exactly what the Opposition mean by that and what they intend to suggest has not been made clear. Although the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that he did not mind how the shortage of housing was addressed, he did not suggest any positive ideas on how the private rented sector could contribute.
The size of the British private rented sector is well below that of other countries; it is half the average size in the OECD countries and under one quarter of that in west Germany. In Switzerland, the private rented sector accounts for 56 per cent. of all housing. The average useful floor space per head in Britain is 32 sq m in comparison with 36 sq m in the other 11 member states of the European Community. It is possible that the greater contribution made by the private rented sector in other countries in comparison with that in Britain has made it possible for those countries to provide more floor space per head.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thurnham: We are short of time, so I will not give way.
Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Government's response to the Committee's report refer to housing benefit. I notice that a working group has been established by the Departments of the Environment and of Social Security to discuss that matter regularly. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell me whether that working group is producing a report and whether, under the provisions of open government, mentioned elsewhere in the Government's report, its work might be made more available. It would be interesting to see exactly what is proposed for housing benefit. Would it be possible to consider it in a different way so that the growth of that benefit can be controlled?
Paragraphs 66 and 69 of the Government's response refer to special needs. I understand that some friendly societies would be interested in investing in housing for people with disabilities. It would be worth exploring that possibility further because of the current restrictions in financing such projects.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has departed, but he made a strong attack on Tower Hamlets, which probably stems from the fact that it was subject to 30 years of uninterrupted, complacent Labour rule, before electoral change. If Tower Hamlets was under a Conservative administration, some of the recent developments would be worth considering. It is interesting to note that the local authority has been broken down into seven neighbourhood units. Considerable savings have been made by the business services unit, which I visited last week. I was extremely impressed by the savings that have been made by breaking down centralised services and

running them on a decentralised basis. Lessons could be learnt and it was suggested that the Government should set up an inquiry to consider what has happened in Tower Hamlets. I dare say that there would be much to consider on the political side, but we could learn positive lessons from the way in which the authority is run now that services have been decentralised.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: As a resident and council tax payer in Tower Hamlets, I do not share my hon. Friend's perception of Tower Hamlets as an efficient devolved administration.

Mr. Thurnham: As he is a resident of Tower Hamlets, I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge, but I believe that lessons could be learnt about the way in which the business services unit is run. I would enjoy discussing with my hon. Friend some of the points that were made to me during my visit. I am grateful for that intervention, and I feel that I should now give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) the opportunity to intervene.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The moment has passed by, but I wanted to intervene when the hon. Member made a comparison between our rented sector, including the private sector, and that of other countries, which is so much stronger. Perhaps that is due to the fact that in those countries renting is given parity of esteem with owner-occupation. Conservative Members give the game away when they talk about aspiring to owner-occupation as if that was somehow superior to renting. Until that argument is dropped, we will not be free of the ghettoisation of rented and social housing. Conservative Members should address that important issue.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Lady is looking at the matter from the wrong angle, because the issue is whether property is privately or publicly owned. The advantage enjoyed by the countries that I mentioned is that they have a large privately owned sector—whether it is privately rented or owner-occupied is subsidiary to the advantage gained by the size of that sector. What distinguishes our country is that we have a high level of socially rented accommodation. I accept that the national figure for such accommodation has come down to 21 per cent., but in my constituency in Bolton the number of council houses has only fallen from 26,000 in 1983 to 23,000 today.
Council houses represent part of the enormous assets of councils. I asked Bolton council officials for the total value of its assets. Although they did not have an up-to-date valuation, they estimated that, on the basis of insurance values, its total assets were worth £600 million. I estimate that housing may account for half of that figure. Substantial assets are held in public ownership and the issue should be how to get those assets transferred into private ownership.
The Mail on Sunday listed the debts of local authorities and compared them with those of third world countries. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish might be interested to learn that Manchester's debt, which currently stands at £1.3 billion, is second only to that of El Salvador. I advocate that more council houses should be sold to reduce that debt. The total amount of all local authority debt is £37.5 billion.

Mr. Raynsford: That has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Thurnham: It has everything to do with it, because the private sector represents the way in which to solve our housing problems.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thurnham: No. I have given way to the hon. Lady once.
The private sector has played a great role in Switzerland, for example, which has a socially rented accommodation sector of just 14 per cent., according to the latest figures that I have seen. Why do we have a social rented sector twice that level? I am satisfied that resources could be made available far more efficiently through the private rented sector than through the public sector.

Mr. John Battle: I welcome the opportunity to debate the report on the Housing Corporation by the Select Committee on the Environment. Some hon. Members on that Committee may recall that in December 1991 I asked whether the previous Chairman, Sir Hugh Rossi, would lead the Committee's debate on housing associations, with particular reference to their affordability and the impact of housing benefit. Therefore, I am especially pleased that a substantial piece of work on the Housing Corporation has been undertaken by the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), and I hope that it will not be another decade before the Environment Select Committee finds time to consider housing issues again.
Since the publication of the Committee's report, time has moved on for all of us. I add a word of welcome to the newly appointed chairman of the Housing Corporation, Sir Brian Pearse. Although we welcome the Committee's report and its unanimous consensus in its recommendations and compliment the Committee on its work, I must register disappointment at the thinness of the Government's official response. That response, published in October last year, seems to have deliberately played down, if not side-stepped, the thrust and urgency of the Select Committee report's recommendations—the need to tackle the problem of affordability of housing association properties, squeezed between reducing grant rates on the one hand and inevitably high and increasing rents on the other, caught between housing association grant cuts and now the threatened housing benefit cuts.
Although Ministers have tried to reassure us and suggested that people on no or low incomes have no reason to worry because, in the words of the Housing Minister,
housing benefit will take the strain",
in recent weeks the threatening noises off from the Secretary of State for Social Security suggest that housing benefit may now prove to be the strands of a fraying rope. Housing benefit represents £8.7 billion of public expenditure and the Secretary of State for Social Security has made it clear, in articles that appeared in the newspapers on 3 March this year, that it is now to be targeted by his Department.
It is also appropriate that the debate takes place in the context of the estimates, because that supportive arithmetic is crucial to the survival of housing associations as well as to the ability of tenants to pay their rent. In other words, the funding arrangements are at the core of the discussion. I hope that the Minister will not give us that new evasive expression, "I hear what you say" but mutter under his breath, "but I shall not do anything about it".
Recently, the Housing Corporation published the report "The Next 3 Years: The Housing Corporation's Plans and Priorities 1994–1997", partly in response to the Select Committee's recommendations. That welcome document takes on board the need for regional development, with the newly established regional consultative meetings, the improvement of the tenants' guarantee and tenants' rights, continued support for tenant participation and the setting up of the housing associations ombudsman service—all positive responses, and all warmly welcomed by Opposition Members. The report also, encouragingly, says that this year's focus will be on care in the community provision. That is welcome, too.
However, I suspect, thinking of the ombudsman's service, that already many housing associations' tenants are writing to the ombudsman—as they are doing to Members of Parliament—complaining about their rent increases. Rapidly increasing rents are the main bone of contention, increasing at well above the inflation rate and pricing out those people who are not on middle incomes or who depend entirely on housing benefit. As the Select Committee report succinctly put it in paragraph 5,
In considering housing association grant rates the Government will have to bear in mind the likely consequences of its decisions in terms of affordability, availability of private finance and benefit dependency".
The Minister will have to take seriously the words and reported comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security because he has been reported as saying that he wants measures to
discourage local authorities from paying housing benefit for unnecessarily expensive property".
That is precisely the problem which confronts many housing associations, because their properties are proving expensive. Notably, in his chairman's foreword to The Next 3 Years", Sir Christopher Benson remarked:
There are occasions when given the nature of our relationship with the Department of Environment it is inappropriate for us to enter into open debate. These occasions arc in the main in the period prior to annual decisions being announced on public expenditure.
Although it is easy to understand the difficulty that the Housing Corporation faces in publicly challenging the Government on setting housing association grant rates, it is not so easy to understand why the Housing Minister, in paragraph 2 of the Government's response, simply says:
Many of the recommendations are primarily addressed to the Housing Corporation. The Government's response takes account of the Corporation's views.
If the corporation cannot take a public view on the arithmetic, I suggest that it is unacceptable for the Minister to push the Select Committee report back in the Housing Corporation's direction, thus fobbing off the key recommendations that the Select Committee spelt out—again I quote from the report:
Unless the poverty trap consequences of the Housing Benefit tapers are addressed, or procurement costs fall, proposals to make further reductions in HAG rates should be dropped.
That is a strong statement. Although Sir Christopher Benson feels that he cannot comment publicly, the Minister cannot dismiss the recommendations as being primarily addressed to the Housing Corporation. The core recommendations of that consensus report are primarily addressed to the Government and to the Housing Minister and perhaps to that most powerful background voice of all in this connection—that of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
In spite of the Select Committee's unanimous and strong call for further HAG rate reductions to be dropped,


on 4 August last year the Housing Minister went ahead and announced a HAG level for 1994–95 fixed at a national rate ceiling of 62 per cent. Either he did not hear or did not want to respond to the thrust of the Select Committee report, or he ignored it because he was overruled by the Treasury. He cannot simply pass on Treasury cuts and hope that the housing associations survive.
The Government plan to reduce HAG to 55 per cent. by 1995–96. That will again massively increase rents and in turn increase the housing benefit bill.
Last week, the Department of Social Security's annual report was published. It showed that rent allowances for private and housing association tenants are increasing by an average of 6.5 per cent. in real terms compared with 14.3 per cent. during the past four years. Yet figures from the National Federation of Housing Associations show rents increasing between 17 and 20 per cent. in 1993–94. As a result of rent increases of that nature, people will be priced out of housing associations and housing associations will be priced out of development entirely. They will be forced to cease to build and will have to live off their seed corn.
It is important that the question of the so-called benefit trap, poverty trap or work disincentives is clearly understood. The Select Committee report recommended
that the Government instruct a Cabinet Committee or inter-Departmental working group to review the relationship between HAG rates and benefit entitlements and to develop a strategy for easing the problems faced by housing association tenants and others caught in the poverty trap.
In the Government response, the Minister stated:
The Government maintains that in general it is a more efficient use of public resources to target subsidy on individuals through the benefits system, rather than on bricks and mortar through HAG.
We have heard echoes of that policy from Conservative Members today.
Although the Minister claimed, in his response to the report, that
The Department of the Environment, Department of Social Security and the Treasury work closely together to ensure that the interaction between the different subsidy systems is understood and appreciated",
that is not what comes through. We believe that that approach is economic nonsense in the long term. Bricks and mortar are more efficient in the long term, and in housing we need to reinstate subsidies that go in the direction of bricks and mortar. I would rather direct towards the language of future investment. It is also difficult to believe that the Government have done the arithmetic.
I recall that, at the time of the deregulation of the private rented sector, the Housing Bill of 1988 was passing through the House. In Committee, I asked the Minister what impact he thought that high market rents would have on the Department of Social Security budget. He replied that he did not expect them to have any impact.
At that time, some of us were having to serve on two Committees simultaneously. The Social Security Bill was in Committee just along the Corridor, and I went to ask the Minister involved whether he knew that subsidised high rents in the private rented sector would absorb most of the social security budget, because they would absorb housing benefit.
Last week, the Downing street press office was telephoned about information in the newspapers concerning the intention of the Department of Social Security to target and cut housing benefit. Apparently, the press office responded to that serious inquiry by saying that housing benefit was solely a matter for local authorities, and was increasing because of high council rents. It did not spell out the fact that local authority rented properties are less expensive than housing association properties, which in turn are much less expensive than properties in the private rented sector. There seems to be great confusion at the heart of Government—a difficulty in understanding the link between housing benefit and rents across the board.
The real problem is not experienced by the pensioner on full state pension, without the £2 supplementary occupational pension that floats such people out of housing benefit; nor is it experienced by the unemployed person on full housing benefit who takes on a housing association flat. Let us suppose that an unemployed person on full housing benefit visits a jobcentre and is offered a job at £140 a week—such offers are still a reality. If that person's rent is £65 a week once housing benefit has been discounted, he may well feel that he must turn down the job because he will lose his benefit. Many people are now describing that position as a work disincentive.
The Social Security Bill Committee to which I referred earlier—the Committee that was sitting at the same time as the Committee considering the Housing Bill of 1988—spelt out that anyone who turned down a job offer would lose all entitlement to benefit. That is worse than being asked to choose between job and home: unless the matter is sorted out, people may well lose both. They are being caught between high rents and the difficulties involved in having to depend on benefit to cover those rents. That is because we have a Government who are addicted to a policy of high rents, and are unable to understand that that, does not square with high unemployment and low wages unless a huge housing benefit bill is to be created. This year's bill is £8.7 billion, the projected figure for next year is £10 billion, and that for the year after is £12 billion.
According to the Secretary of State for Social Security, the only way out is for the Treasury to cut housing benefit. In practice, that means that people will be unable to make up the difference to pay their high rents, and will have to move out of their homes.
Interestingly, the Minister has revealed that the Government's own affordability formula assumes that working households without any housing benefit can afford to spend 35 per cent. of their net incomes on rent. That is contradicted by the work of the National Federation of Housing Associations, which recently adopted the following policy:
Rents are affordable if the majority of working households taking up new tenancies are not caught in the poverty trap (because of dependency on housing benefit) or paying more than 25 per cent. of their net income on rent.
In other words, rents are not affordable when more than 50 per cent. of working tenants are caught in the benefit trap through dependency on housing benefit, or—if they do not receive such benefit—spend more than 25 per cent. of their incomes on rent. Yet an increasing proportion of housing association rents in new lettings exceed that crucial criterion.
Responding to recommendations that particular proposals for further reductions in HAG rates be dropped until the resolution of the problems, the Minister said—in paragraph 50 of the Government's response—
The Government's decision was taken after consideration of a range of factors including the likely effect of lower grant rates on housing association rents, likely changes in procurement and borrowing costs, in income levels; the implication of likely changes in rent levels for housing benefit expenditure.
Does the Minister for Housing Inner Cities and Construction—unlike his Treasury colleagues—recognise that the incomes of those at the lowest levels are falling, and that, as a consequence, housing benefit must inexorably rise to cover the gap between incomes and rents? More and more of the disposable income of tenants who do not receive housing benefit will be absorbed by their rent.
On 1 February, on Radio 4, Anthony Mayer said:
At a rent of £55, a couple with a child has to earn over £12,000 a year … to escape the poverty trap.
According to paragraph 53 of the Government's response, however,
The Government took account of findings from the Housing Corporation which indicated that the effects on rents of lower grant rates would be offset by changes in procurement and borrowing costs and in income levels.
When the Minister appeared before the Environment Select Committee on 21 April 1993, he refused to comment on the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) about Housing Corporation advice to the Minister on HAG levels. He said that that was not a matter to be dealt with by the Committee. Since then, Anthony Mayer—who is chief executive of the Housing Corporation—has spoken to the committee members' conference of the National Federation of Housing Associations. He is reported to have said, on Friday 21 January, that the Housing Corporation board recommended retention of 67 per cent. HAG rates for 1994–95. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he rejected the Housing Corporation's advice when all the comments in the Government's response suggest that they were taking the Housing Corporation's findings on board.
At a private seminar for lenders, Anthony Mayer went on to reveal that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had made it clear that the Government would do nothing to housing benefit that would compromise the position of housing associations, adding:
If the Government did make significant cuts in housing benefit the result would be immediate catastrophe. I would advise you all to resign immediately. The pack of cards would fold very quickly.
In other words, there was a real danger that, as well as pricing out tenants, the removal of housing benefits would frighten away private investors and destabilise housing associations.
Already, housing benefit is regarded as an insecure political variable—an unreliable income stream, subject to the cuts imposed by the Secretary of State for Social Security. That is why private investors are now backing off from all but the largest housing associations—those that can pool larger amounts of rent.
It is difficult to discern where the Government's housing policy is headed. The Housing Corporation and housing associations are now caught in the centre of conflicting policies. Paragraph 68 of the Government's response stresses that the real strength of the housing association sector lies in diversity of management,

particularly when an association can bring specialised management skills to bear, or can offer a localised base for effective and sensitive housing management.
We agree with that entirely; yet, in practice, Government policy pulls in the opposite direction. The Government are squeezing out special needs provision, and undermining the special needs management allowance with the Treasury cap on revenue support. That has led to a reduction in the supported housing association programme to 2,500 units for 1994–95.
Furthermore, at the recent Housing Corporation conference, the Minister announced the introduction of arrangements to promote competition for capital and revenue needs in regard to supported housing. That will pile more pressure on the special needs sector. Smaller associations, particularly in rural areas, are still locked in the impasse of what charitable organisations can do—not least because, in such areas, those on low incomes cannot take up what the Government are promoting as share ownership schemes.
Support has been withdrawn from self-build and co-ops. The Housing Corporation's capital support for housing co-operation developments has reached an all-time low: it is 1.54 per cent. of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1994–95.
The crucial issues of affordability, high rents, benefits, housing association rates and the effect of driving away private finance, as well as the key issue of diversity, have been side-stepped in the Government's response. As a result, housing associations will be forced simply to recreate the worst conditions of the large local authority estates of the past. The fundamental problem is lack of Government direction, the absence of a cohesive housing policy. Britain needs more homes for renting rather than a further Housing Corporation cut of £500 million, as happened in this year's Budget. We do not need more incentives to buy through tenant incentive schemes. We do not need more shared ownership schemes. What we need are policies that will result in the provision of more homes for renting.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does not the tenants incentive scheme demonstrate the lack of coherence in the Government's policy? The resources for that scheme have been increased massively, but there has been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the policy. When I was involved in the scheme, I found that many of the people taking advantage of it would have bought homes and, therefore, moved out of housing association property in any case. This is yet another example of the residualisation of the social rented sector.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which proves that the Government are facing two ways. On one hand, a Secretary of State announces that there is no further need to build homes in Britain—in the homelessness review, the Government have a line about future generations who will not thank us for building more homes—but, on the other, there is more and more pushing in the direction of expanding home ownership at the expense of the rented sector. That is why the Government are in real difficulty. On the question of housing association policy, they are between a rock and a hard place.
Labour believes that there is an absolute and acute shortage of homes to rent. We believe that unemployed


building workers could be used now to provide homes for renting. Capital receipts could and should be released for investment. We believe that housing associations, although they account for only 3 per cent. of the housing stock in Britain, have a dynamic and vital innovative role to play in the full panoply of housing provision and homes to rent. They ought not to be abandoned or priced out. Housing associations should be locally rooted and locally accountable to tenants and communities. They should be strengthened so that they may reassert their traditional role, including vital specialist provision. They should be allowed to develop and expand rehabilitation and to provide positive support for diversification. There is a positive vision for housing associations, but, referring to the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, I have to say that we are looking not for comment but for action.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): Like other hon. Members, I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate to acknowledge the work of the Select Committee on the Environment. As we discovered during a Supply day debate on housing a few weeks ago, this is a subject on which we do not always manage to achieve unanimity. However, the Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), has produced a consensus report, which makes a very valuable contribution to the Housing Corporation's future "Operations in social housing. I congratulate the Committee on its achievement. Indeed, it has led to a moderate and consensual debate today.
To the extent to which the confusion referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has existed, one detected some signs of incipient tension among Opposition Members. On one hand, we had the Dunfermline decree that there should be no new public expenditure commitments; on the other hand, we heard the expansionist ambitions of several Opposition Back-Bench Members. I see some trouble ahead. One of my constituents said to me at the weekend, "What is the point in supporting the Labour party if it does not intend to spend any more than the Tories?" The incipient tension to which I have referred is demonstrated by the contrast between what the Opposition would like to do—

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: Sorry, no. I have been done out of a couple of minutes by the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West.
The Government's response was published last October. We indicated our acceptance of the majority of the recommendations and our intention to act on them. Many have already been implemented, and others are being taken forward. I shall try to deal with the key points raised by the Committee's Chairman. There will not be enough time to get through all of them, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about those to which I do not manage to refer and shall, perhaps, copy the letter to other members of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) rightly invited us to put housing in a slightly broader social context. He referred to a constituent confronted with a rent of, I think, £70 a week for a new housing association property. There is a trade-off between rents and output. If we had not taken our decisions on grant rates, the hon. Gentleman's constituent might not have had any property to move into.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) made a thoughtful speech, which touched on the issue of affordability. He raised a number of questions—for example, deemed interest on savings—for which the Department of Social Security is responsible. He rightly identified the mistakes that we made in the 1960s and the 1970s—some of the developments that were undertaken with the best of intentions but with disastrous results. I welcome the work that my hon. Friend's wife does on the Housing Corporation and as the chairman of a very substantial housing association.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred to a conversation with his authority's director of housing. That officer is somewhat unusual in that his housing stock has been transferred. This is a policy on which the Government are keen, as it not only generates capital receipts, which can be recycled into investment in social housing, but enables the local authority to concentrate on its strategic and enabling role.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulty, in the case of one estate, of promoting shared ownership. If he looks at our plans, he will see that that is not the only home ownership initiative. There is the tenants incentive scheme, which is very popular and has nearly always been oversubscribed, and there are the low-cost home ownership proposals, which do not involve shared ownership and represent a growing part of the Housing Corporation's programme. The objections to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not apply with the same force to these other aspects. The hon. Gentleman talked about the flats over shops scheme—something on which I am keen. The Government have put about £25 million of public money on the table to drive the policy forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) was right to refer to the financial management of housing associations. Where there are substantial reserves, the Government encourage local housing associations to plough the funds back into fresh development. My hon. Friend was right to suggest that those resources are meant for investment in housing. In the case of a non-charitable housing association, there is normally an associated right to buy. But that does not cover certain properties that are particularly suitable for letting to the elderly. I should like to write to my hon. Friend about this matter.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised a number of points. I should like to deal with one of them—the issue of transporting families from one borough to another. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, and I repeat, that one borough should not export its problems to another unless the latter has so agreed. Each borough should develop a strategy to sort out its own problems. If it has greater needs, it will be provided, through the allocation process, with greater resources with which to tackle them.
I enjoyed very much the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry). It was cold in High Peak the weekend before last, but the visit was very worth


while. My hon. Friend rightly focused on the key currency of lettings as opposed to new build. My hon. Friend was right to concentrate on the potential for bringing 850,000 empty properties back into use—not, as was proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, by purchase, which would involve the expenditure of a very substantial amount of public money, raising the eyebrows of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), but by the promotion of management arrangements whereby the public sector would not have to own the properties but would have the benefit of letting them, using housing associations as an intermediary.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: If I am to do justice to the debate and deal with the questions that have been raised, I shall have to plough on.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that the local authority housing stock had been diminished through the right to buy. One must put on the other side of the scales the increased nominations to housing associations through new lets and relets. One must look at the total picture. Last week, I had a chat with the ombudsman, Roger Jeffries. I was impressed by the way in which Mr. Jeffries was making progress with complaints and, in particular, by his work on the promotion of mediation as a means of bringing disputes to a satisfactory conclusion. That is a matter in which I am very interested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) rightly reminded us of the importance of the private rented sector. The latest figures show that the decline has been arrested and that sector now accounts for a growing percentage of tenure, which I welcome. My hon. Friend had some radical new ideas on tenant ownership on which the Government are reflecting.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West made a rather alarmist speech. We have made it clear that we are reducing the housing association grant rate to get more units out of the given amount of public funds and it would be absurd to pursue those policies to the extent that one got no units because there was no funding. At the end of his speech, he worked himself up into a minor frenzy about the absence of housing policy. I suggest that he reads the editorial in the latest edition of Roof magazine, which contains some punchy criticism of any new thinking on housing by the Labour party. The editorial in Roof magazine does not usually spring to my support, so the hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on what thoughtful people who write about housing are saying about the vacuum in Labour party policy.
In the remaining time available, I shall deal quickly with some of the issues raised before I mention affordability. The Select Committee on the Environment referred to the constitution of the corporation's board and how appointments are made. Although it recognised that members of a public board could not be representative, it wanted a slightly broader mix of appointments. I am pleased to report that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, earlier this month we appointed to the board two new members with precisely the skills for which the Select Committee invited us to look. Derek Waddington has had a long career in local government and is currently director of housing in Birmingham, which is the largest housing authority in the country. We also appointed Roger Council, who is a welfare benefits adviser

and a tenant of Yorkshire Metropolitan housing association. In 1992, he became the first elected tenant representative on its management committee. I am sure that both will both make a valuable contribution to the work of the Housing Corporation.
Last week, we appointed Sir Brian Pearse as chairman of the corporation from 1 April. I am grateful for the kind words of all hon. Members about Sir Brian. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to Sir Christopher Benson for his important contribution to the changes that have been carried through in the past four years. It has been a difficult and challenging time for the corporation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West invited me to give a progress report on regional committees. We were not persuaded that a formal structure of regional committees was necessary, but we agreed that a forum to provide for regional consultation might be helpful. The corporation has taken the idea on board and I am pleased to announce that the first round of consultative meetings with local authorities, housing associations and tenants will commence in each region from next month. The first meeting is to be held on 13 April in the west midlands and, thereafter, meetings will be held every six months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West also asked about regional office boundaries. There are benefits to be gained from conterminous boundaries between the corporation and my Department. I can therefore announce that the corporation proposes, with our approval, to revise its regional boundaries from 1 April 1995 to bring them into line with those of the Government's integrated regional offices, except in Merseyside where the present boundaries will be retained. The Yorkshire and Humberside and northern regions will continue to maintain a joint office to cover both regions from Leeds, and the east and east midlands regions will operate a joint office in Leicester. In both cases, the corporation will structure operations to produce data to the two regions covered by each office separately. The changes will produce valuable operational benefits.
I deal now with grant rates, which were a recurrent theme in many of today's speeches. An important element of the Select Committee's work concerned the issues surrounding the HAG rate paid to support the corporation's capital programme. We have heard a great deal about the impact of falling grant rates on housing association rent levels and on the affordability of those rents. Even more has been said about how high rent levels have forced an increasing number of housing association tenants on to housing benefit and into the poverty trap, to use the words of Labour Members, or into the protective embrace of housing benefit, to use the words of my hon. Friends.
I remind the House that we have not heard about the many additional homes that have been created by the reduction in HAG rates. We have not heard about the many additional families who have been decently housed as a result of the decisions and who would otherwise be homeless or waiting in inadequate accommodation. Each reduction in grant rate means that more private finance is levered into the programme and the available public resources are made to stretch further.
Since 1988, when we decided to introduce the concept of mixed funding, a total of £2.6 billion of private finance has been raised to support housing association development, which is the equivalent of about 55,000 new homes. There is a real choice between, on the one hand, reducing


grant rates and increasing the supply of housing and, on the other, keeping grant rates high which, will indeed reduce rent levels but at the expense of the number of new homes that we can provide.
At a time when development and borrowing costs have fallen fast, I make no apologies for taking the opportunity to use the savings to concentrate the funds available for housing investment on boosting output, especially as our benefit system focuses help on those people who might have difficulty paying their rent. I believe that it is a more effective use of resources—

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Sir George Young: I can perhaps save the hon. Lady's energy by assuring her that I do not propose to give way.
I believe that that is a more effective use of resources than bricks and mortar grants which benefit all tenants, irrespective of income.
I deal now with the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West. The Environment Select Committee specifically recommended that I should not cut grant rates for next year unless procurement costs fell further. All the signs are that procurement costs in 1994–95 will continue to fall. The Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations accepted that, and it was clear from the corporation's model that I could set an average HAG rate of about 64 per cent. without affecting the affordability of the rents charged.
In the event, having considered the likely impact on actual rents and on the ability of associations to pool rents across their stock and to make further efficiency savings, I felt justified in reducing the average HAG rate to 62 per cent. In fact, the continuing fall since then in gilt yields has meant that financing costs are likely to be even lower than we anticipated, which will further reduce the rents that associations need to charge.
I also considered carefully the likely impact of lower grant rates on the availability of private finance. From our discussions with private lenders, and from the work done for the Housing Corporation by European Capital, I was confident that private finance would be available to support the development programme at an average grant rate of 62 per cent. In view of the number of bids for housing association grants received by the corporation—£4 for every I accepted—it seems that housing associations share my confidence and are coping well with the lower grant rates. The reduction of the average grant rate to 62 per cent. next year should result in an additional 2,600 new homes.
To put the debate on rents in a broader perspective, the average rent for all housing association tenants on 31 March last year, which is the last full year for which figures

are available, was just £34 a week. Even excluding those who are still paying fair rents, the figure was only £38 a week. For new tenancies the average is £43 a week. It is important to keep that perspective.
We have heard a great deal about the poverty trap. As the House will know, benefit system policy is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security. The system is designed to ensure that maximum benefit is targeted on those who need it most and the rules ensure that people are better off as their gross incomes increase. Only a very small proportion of those receiving income-related benefits face marginal deduction rates at the highest level, some of which we have heard about this evening.
I assure the House that my Department and the Department of Social Security meet regularly in a working group that was set up to provide a forum to discuss, among other things, the relationship between policies on HAG rates and housing benefit. I and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who has been mentioned once or twice today, attended a seminar of private sector lenders last September when he said:
Housing benefit rules may well change from time to time. But we have an enduring commitment to making sure that people can afford the rented housing they need.
Although the benefits review is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, I can tell the House that no conclusions have yet been reached, and hon. Members would be better advised to wait for a statement from my right hon. Friend than rely on press speculation.
I mentioned the ombudsman a moment ago. So far, he has received 234 complaints, of which 85 per cent. have been accepted and are already being pursued. We shall keep the matter under review.
The challenges facing the Housing Corporation demonstrate that it clearly has a sizeable task ahead. My view is that housing associations, their members and their officers have responded positively to the changes introduced in 1988. I am sure that they will face the next challenges with enthusiasm.
Social housing is a constantly changing environment in which innovation and co-operation must be the key words. Housing associations have a good record and I am sure that they will continue to develop and to work with local authorities and private landlords to make the best use of all the rented housing stock, not simply to meet housing needs, but to create thriving communities. As I have already said, we have given full consideration to the Select Committee's recommendations—

The debate was concluded and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to para (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

London Docklands Development Corporation Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, I raised a point of order about the remarkable power that the private Bill, promoted by the London Docklands development corporation, would give to the Secretary of State for the Environment to dispose of the corporation to anybody he liked at any time and at any price. That seem to me to be a rather remarkable power to be included in a private Bill because it relates to as much as £1.2 billion of public assets.
In response to my point of order, Madam Speaker quoted a precedent from a private Bill which is now the British Waterways Act 1983. Our queries earlier today related to two points: first, the giving of the power to dispose of the whole or part of the LDDC and secondly, the fact that the Bill as drafted, and as apparently accepted by the authorities of both Houses, does not require any order or decision made by the Secretary of State to come before the House.
I have now checked the British Waterways Act 1983. It contains a schedule, covering virtually two pages, which lays down the detailed and difficult procedure, with many hurdles, that the Secretary of State would have to follow in disposing of any of the property of the British Waterways Board. It seems to me that the precedent that was quoted does not fully meet our objections. In the Bill as presently drafted, there is no requirement to bring any such proposition to the House, whereas under the British Waterways Act, which was quoted as a precedent, there is a requirement to bring such propositions before the House under a special parliamentary procedure.
I should, therefore, be grateful for your ruling again, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is appropriate for this public measure to be smuggled through as part of a private Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Madam Speaker has already given considerable thought to the matter. She gave her ruling earlier today and I have no intention of altering or querying that in any way. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfectly possible during this debate, if he so wishes, to deploy the arguments that he has put as a point of order as arguments during debate. I further point out to him that if the Bill receives a Second Reading and goes to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, that Committee will be able to consider whether there should be any amendments or any other alterations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I may be able to assist the House before I move that the Bill be read a Second time. The clause to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has referred in this point of order and the one at the end of the statement this afternoon relates to the later transfer of functions from the LDDC. It is a perfectly proper matter of concern.
The hon. Gentleman may know—if he does not, this may be the way through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to

ensure that the matter is on the record—that his point has been understood by the promoter, the LDDC. I should like to repeat publicly an assurance, given privately in writing to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) by the corporation, that it is entirely happy to amend the Bill to ensure that in relation to this power, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider and to vote on an order without which there could not be that transfer of power. I hope that that meets the concern about the processes. The matter can, of course, be pursued further in the debate on Second Reading.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for pointing out this matter. The importance of the clause had not gone entirely without notice for some months. However, I give notice further to the point of order that when the Bill goes, as it probably will and perhaps should, to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, there will be discussions relating to the amendment that the promoter is willing to accept and to other matters. I refer especially to the issue that has been raised and has come into focus only in the past week—the relationship between public and private legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we can now make a start.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We come to this debate against the background of the passage of almost 14 years since the legislation was presented to and approved by the House which entitled the Government to set up the first development corporations. The flagship of those development corporations was envisaged then as—I say this at the risk of being accused of being either metropolitan or regionalist—and could still be said to be, the London Docklands development corporation. It was set up, by order, under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 for the purpose of the regeneration of docklands. I and other hon. Members have been involved since that period in the debates about that process.
The fact that, unusually, the Bill is being sponsored by an Opposition Member does not change my view or that of other Opposition Members who represent docklands' constituencies that elected or imposed quangos are not the best way in which to proceed. We could all dig up hundreds of columns of comment on the history of development corporations that make that point over and over again. At this stage, however, I do not want to dwell on what has been or on what might have been. Indeed, I regard it as my job tonight specifically to deal with what will be.
The Bill comes before us tonight because the LDDC has realised that it has inherited the responsibility for regenerating an area of docklands, but that it does not have the consequential logical powers to manage that estate in certain areas. The point of order relates to the same powers, but specifically to what happens in the post-LDDC era.
We are talking about the legacy of the Port of London Authority and the legacy of the regulations that went with managing the port, such as the byelaws and the other powers that were given to that authority, which was a


non-elected authority in its day. The reality of docklands now, as anyone who lives or travels there knows and as my colleagues who represent docklands know, is that it is not a working port any more. The Port of London has moved downstream to Tilbury and the docklands is a very different community. It is a community in which there is some marine activity—all Opposition Members would, I think, say that there is too little. There is a new airport and new businesses have come in to replace the businesses on the wharves and along the docks.
There is much new residential accommodation and there are significant new regions of public provision. One of the consequences of the closing of the docks at the Port of London end of the Thames near to Tower bridge and along the shores of our boroughs in Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham is that much of the space that was previously private has become public open space. Many of the views that people had in the past were of wharves, cranes and commercial dock activity. That has changed. The wharves have become offices or flats and walkways through the wharves and down to the edge of the Thames have become public amenities in a way that they never were before. That makes it an entirely different area to manage. It is for that reason that the docklands corporation, for the first time, seeks to introduce a Bill that will give it power to manage.
As the explanatory memorandum says the Bill contains, among other things,
powers to enable the London Docklands Development Corporation … to manage and regulate certain lands and waters within or in the vicinity of its area".
I want to elaborate on the main purposes of the Bill and deal with other linked matters.
If the Bill passes through this House—it has already passed through the other place—the corporation will take powers that relate almost entirely to land and water within the boundaries of the LDDC.
Pausing there, we are still at that stage where the LDDC has not rolled back any of its frontiers. That is a matter which I shall allude to in a minute. But dedesignation, as it is called—a power that has been changed from a power originally to roll back the dockland corporation in one move to a power to roll it back in part—has not yet begun, although it is very much under discussion.
We are discussing docklands as it has become. It is a great expanse comprising 400 acres of enclosed water, about 25 miles of dock edge, all owned by the LDDC. That is a lot of water and dock edge, owned by one authority. That is why, to be honest, the big player here is the LDDC.
Technically today, the statutory controls reside with the PLA, but that has become irrelevant to the functioning of the activities in the region in question. As of tonight, the LDDC has no more powers to govern what goes on in docklands than those of a private landowner. It has regulated the region; it has been the planning development authority; it has sought to police what it has planned. Local authorities such as mine have sometimes resented those powers. The reality, however, has been without any statutory backing. It has employed former harbour masters, 20 water wardens and a degree of bluster, good will and hope to try to get its own way.
Another reality is that with every year that passes not only do more people live and work in docklands than was the case when the LDDC first came into being in 1981 but

lots more people visit it on weekdays, as on a Sunday, to walk along from London bridge, for example, down to Hay's galleria, and along that and other riverside walks. They come to canoe, to sail and to take part in riverside sports or to visit places such as the docklands arena or even to appreciate the architecture, which in parts is as attractive by night as by day.
There are all sorts of new activities that act as a recreational magnet, bringing people from east London and beyond. These include a rowing club in the Royal Albert dock, and water sports centres in Millwall, the Greenland dock and the Royal Victoria docks. There is a water sports club in Shadwell basin. The London sea scouts have their headquarters in the East India docks. There are marinas, one on my side of the river in South dock and Greenland dock and one to be set up on each side of the river in the Albert basin. There are restaurants burgeoning all over the place. There are now even several floating restaurants. I have only visited one and when I went there for a public meeting it nearly sank, so it was not a good precedent for me. There will be, as there are now, historic vessels to visit and other docklands traditions will be retained by the restoration of buildings to their former glory. In addition, historic vessels will be restored to suitable sites.
There is some commercial traffic of course. Barges still take construction materials and excavated spoil in a good year to Canary wharf—in a less good year to other, lesser ventures. Some of the spoil will be from the Jubilee line extension, although some of that will go by road. We have tried to establish a decent riverbus service as part of London's integrated transport system. It has to be said, sadly, that two of those initiatives for such a service have sunk, but there are still people who want to put a third one afloat. I am sure that other hon. Members representing constituencies in the region will wish them well. We in the Liberal Democrats believe that a riverbus will really happen only when it is agreed as part of an integrated London transport structure that has a built-in and accepted subsidy that does not rely primarily on the private developer, who might be the beneficiary.
There are Sunday markets and there is even a plan for a floating market. Additional activities will attract other people.
What will the Bill do? If it is passed, it will give the corporation, instead of the PLA, general power to regulate and manage the areas designated in the Bill, subject to certain duties, some of which were inserted in the other place following negotiations with the London boroughs. These include, most importantly, a duty to secure a diversity of uses for the region and maintain public access to the waterside. One of the questions that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asks most often in this place—certainly I have often asked it, too—is why, when the original legislation was passed, it was not made clear for whose benefit the docklands were to be regenerated.
It was a wonderful Bill for setting out objectives, but it did not have any specified clientele. It was a general regeneration. Many of us that thought it would be helpful—and would have agreed that it was necessary to stress this from the beginning—that it should be regenerated in particular for the benefit of the communities living and working there.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As so often, one asks a question knowing the


answer. The hon. Gentleman well knows that during the long Committee stage of the original Bill, I moved amendment after amendment to achieve the purposes that he has mentioned, particularly to add national advantage, local importance and local advantage. The Government declined to act and the amendments were lost.

Mr. Hughes: When the hon. Gentleman was doing that, I was a mere candidate for the Greater London council. Although that was not an election I won, we did much better than we had before. One of the things that I was told, almost immediately after having taken my seat on St. David's day in 1983, was that the first piece of legislation that I should seek to understand was that which set up the urban development corporation in 1980. I was therefore given the full works and they remain on my shelf to this day.
I was aware of that debate, because that was the debate that the community was having in Southwark, the docklands, Tower Hamlets and Newham when the legislation was passed. That was a well-fought debate. The hon. Gentleman was pre-eminent in fighting that corner—I wish, like him, that he had won.
How will the Bill work? The main controls of the Bill will be by means of byelaws and they can be made for the purposes set out in schedule 3.
If Royal Assent is given, some parts of Bill will immediately come into effect, as is frequently the way with legislation. They include important provisions, for example, the control of obstructions on the waterside, the control of pollution, and the movement of vessels.
Therefore, there will be a control of activity on water and a control of activity adjacent to the water to which the public have access. It will be an offence to break those rules, just as it is an offence to break other principal and secondary legislation and byelaws, and, therefore, there is provision for an enforcement mechanism.
The Bill requires that before making byelaws, the docklands corporation is to consult the local authority—the borough council for the area in question—and to consult the Port of London Authority, the City of London corporation, which is the port health authority and the market authority for Billingsgate market, and the London fire and civil defence authority.
The way in which byelaws operate is adopted from traditional, statutory local government experience—the process contained in the Local Government Act 1972, which local authorities use for their own byelaws. One may object to the Secretary of State about the byelaws. He or she may hold a public inquiry and must confirm them. There is nothing unusual about the system and no additional, separate procedures are being sought. If the House agrees, as it has in the past, that that is the right way in which local authorities should proceed, the corporation asks that it is allowed to use the same procedure.
There are a few odds and ends to which I shall now allude. There are a number of miscellaneous clauses in the Bill. One provides for the extinguishing of certain navigation rights; another provides for the termination of the residual jurisdiction of the PLA, which would effectively say that it is no longer interested in or appropriate for the regulation of such activity; and another varies the boundaries of designated areas. It also deals with another matter, for which I know that the hon. Member for

Newham, South and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) have argued—I was with them when they did so.
They argued that there is and should be an annual report of the activities of the docklands corporation produced, sent to the Secretary of State, and made publicly available. I know that that is done already, but not in a compulsory and regulated manner. Opposition Members have had occasion to complain about the report, or to complain that it has come to our attention only after it has been the subject of a press conference or launch, which is entirely inappropriate.
The controversial matter to which the points of order alluded is the transfer of functions when the London Docklands development corporation ceases to exist. When I was asked to do this job, one of the questions that I asked my briefing team was what would happen when the LDDC went. It is all very well providing for its functions to be transferred, but to whom? It is obvious to me as a Member of Parliament and a democrat that it should go to some authority that is accountable. None of us wants a proposal for the handover to another authority which is not accountable.

Mr. Dobson: Such as Asil Nadir.

Mr. Hughes: Or, indeed, to Asil Nadir, who is not yet a public authority and seems certainly not accountable.
I shall outline what the Bill provides, make a comment that refers to the point of order and express a view. The Bill provides that there can be a transfer by an order of the Secretary of State about which he or she will have had to consult the borough council for the area concerned. I am reading expressly what I have been given:
The Bill does not stipulate to whom the functions will be transferred, although it is the LDDC's favoured policy that functions should transfer to the same body as the land and management responsibilities will be transferred to.
I was asked, as it were, to say that that is a fairly Delphic statement and that it does not expressly say to which body the functions will be transferred. I am instructed that the reason that it does not expressly say that is that no decision has expressly been made.

Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely interesting point to which, perhaps, we shall not get an answer in the debate. There is a difficult question to answer. If there is to be a successor body, which would then find that the land of the docklands area was no longer in its jurisdiction, and that it was in control only of the management of the docks and the water system, is it conceivable that that would be a sufficient task for a single body? If not, surely the logic points to the return of not merely the land in docklands to the boroughs of which they are part, but to the management of the water and of the docks in whatever local authority boundary they fall. Although it may appear to be a kind of a duplication of task, I am sure that it is one which the local authorities would be anxious to do and be capable of fulfilling.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman puts forward as his proposed suggestion one with which, as he would expect, I agree. The starting point must be that management and the regulatory authority are transferred to the democratically accountable three local authorities. If someone approached Members of Parliament or the local


authorities in question with another proposal that they found acceptable, but which was different, I am sure that we would not stand in their way.
If, for example the three local authorities came to an agreement that requested a common, joint committee to manage the water area, as has been done in the past, that might be a practical way forward. It may be easier to have one authority managing all the water space than three authorities in terms of benefit and scale of advantage. However, the assumption must be, as has been our assumption, that the best place to start is the boroughs, but the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that I cannot give him an answer. The reason why I cannot do so is that there is no answer yet to give. The Bill provides the route and the method, but does not provide the solution.
I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and to other colleagues that, if they find that an entirely unsatisfactory conclusion and if they want to know the answer before they allowed the Bill to leave the House, they must seek to get the answer, as I will, during the other stages of the Bill.
I link that answer to the point of order and suggest a way forward. I can assure the House that the debate about who takes over will come back to us. The hon. Member for Newham, South spotted the issue first and others have spotted it subsequently. They have spotted that, as the Bill stands at the moment, clause 22, previously clause 21, which provides for the transfer of the functions of the LDDC conferred on it by the Bill to another body by order of the Secretary of State, is exercisable by statutory instrument, but is not an order which the House has the power to prevent being passed. It does not require the approval of Parliament.
We often have debates like this. I have been on countless Committees that have debated amendments that this or that clause should come into force only if there is a negative or an affirmative resolution of the House to follow. The proposal that the docklands corporation makes through me to the House in answer to the point of order is that it will make those orders subject to negative resolution before the House.
Not only clause 20, but clause 22 will be open to that procedure. A resolution can be tabled which will annul those orders. We could debate the procedures here rather than off in a Committee somewhere and I hope that that will give us the peg on which to hang a debate. The right hon. Gentleman, his friends and I may want to try to push the LDDC to give us a more express answer before the debate and the other stages of the Bill. We may want to engage in thinking ahead rather than leaving it to later, which would be a perfectly responsible procedure to adopt. There is none the less, a promise that the transfer of functions will come before us and that it will be able to be the subject of an annulment procedure. I hope that it will allow us to stage that debate later.
I have two more substantive points to make. I am sure that other hon. Members want to speak. I shall make one point on behalf of the promoter and one more parochial point on behalf of my constituents.
The waters that we are discussing and which are managed by the LDDC are very deep. All of us who live alongside the river and know it well know the danger of the Thames. From my constituency experience, I know that it is difficult to manage safety. For example, what sort of

fencing should we use to stop children falling into the water? Rigid fencing may be easier to climb and provide a child with a sense of security. A child may fall over such fencing quite easily. It might be better to have less rigid or flexible fencing about which children feel insecure. If a child were to cycle down a slope towards a dock edge, flexible fencing would act as a break and throw that child back from the edge. Such safety issues are complicated debates. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and other bodies have been involved in such debates over the years. There is potentially great danger in the docklands. The management of the docklands must be concerned principally with the safety of the user, whether on the water in terms of sport or business or those on the dock or water edge.
Swimming in the Thames and in the docks is also dangerous. One of my first duties was to present regatta cups from the end of a jetty. It was no surprise that I ended up going into Greenland dock as part of the process. I remember someone on the quayside saying, "They would never have done that to Bob Mellish." That was probably true. As I swallowed a mouthful of extremely unpleasant water, I realised why my swimming in the past had been carried out elsewhere. The Government have still not yet made the Thames clean enough to make it the obvious place for me or others to swim in.
On a more serious point, since 1981 four children and 10 adults have drowned in the waters that we are talking about. No matter how well managed the waters are, they will still be dangerous and they will still be subject to infection. For example, toxic blue algae blooms in the summer. We will not be able to get rid of that from the docks in the short term because those blooms come from the Thames which has many nutrients and is a tidal river. We will not suddenly stop the benefits of a tidal river in the docklands and nor would we want to.
On many occasions, young people have had to be prevented from diving off bridges and other structures into the docks. I have often recently seen youngsters diving off dock edges during the summer as they have done in generations past. In addition, hundreds of vehicles have been retrieved from the docks. In 1992 alone, 22 submerged vehicles were recovered from the docks in the Isle of Dogs including—and I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) is aware of this—a Rolls-Royce and a fork lift truck. Perhaps the Rolls-Royce was left there because it was worth more while regarded as insurance than after retrieval—

Mr. Dobson: Probably Asil Nadir's.

Mr. Hughes: I hear a recurrent theme. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has an obsession tonight of which he really must rid himself. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the person to whom he referred is not likely to return to take part in this debate.
The proposed byelaws would make such dumping and other forms of pollution an offence. They would also make it an offence to take part in unauthorised swimming and diving. The first point, preventing the docks' waters from being polluted, is very important. It will also help safety. The second point is also important, although we cannot guarantee that that byelaw will be 100 per cent. obeyed because stopping youngsters swimming and diving is probably one of the most difficult tasks known to human kind.
The byelaws will also keep competing users apart. In all three of our boroughs, docks have been set aside and licensed for sailing. Long stretches of water set aside for sailing can be tempting for other sorts of riverside use such as wet bikes, water skiing and other motorised vessels. There have been many incidents in respect of which people have intervened to stop the motorised and more dangerous activity from interfering, often potentially fatally, with the more passive forms of activity. Dangerous behaviour will be an offence. That is important and I hope that we will all welcome that.
Bad practices go on because people think that they can get away with it. For example, on occasions building contractors find it convenient to wash out their cement skips in the nearest stretch of water. One might think that it does not matter if one lets one's fuel from one's vessel, or from some other activity, into the dock. It is rather like the water and the wine in the well. One thinks that no one notices, but the next day one discovers that everyone has let their oil into the dock and the dock has become very unpleasant indeed. A spill in 1992 measured 1,000 ft by 200 ft. That was a pretty big slick of oil in the docks. People have also emptied other things into the docks, including portable toilets, fairly regularly. I am sure that we would not want that to happen and the regulations allow action to be taken in those circumstances, too. If there is a marina, it is important that people behave properly there for the surrounding users.
I want now to consider the process of the Bill to date so that we appreciate that the Bill has been tested and sounded out in relation to everyone who might have a particular interest. The Bill does not propose a unique power. It is not as if similar powers have not been requested in the House before. Other landowners have comparable powers. They include the National Trust and the water authorities. The British Waterways Bill included similar powers. Transport undertakers, airports and railway companies have similar powers. We are all aware of private Bill procedures in which similar powers have been included. Those bodies have powers to make byelaws and those byelaws often relate to water.
The Merseyside Development Corporation Act 1985 conferred byelaw-making powers on Merseyside which is a similar development corporation to the LDDC. That was a precedent for this Bill as well as for the idea that it would be a good thing to update the authority and make the powers and enforcement belong to the people who do the work. In addition, there has been a consultation process.
There has been considerable consultation with user groups, local and other public authorities, residents' associations and other bodies. More than 90 such bodies have been consulted on the Bill and draft byelaws. No one said that there should be no byelaws. No one has objected in general terms to the proposed byelaws either.
There have been long discussions with the PLA from which the docklands corporation seeks to inherit. It has no objection to the Bill or to the amendments already made in the other place or proposed to be made in this place. No petitions have been lodged in this House. There were two petitions in the other place, one from the borough of Tower Hamlets and the other from the Docklands Forum. 13oth were withdrawn following negotiations before the Bill reached its Committee stage in the Lords. Newham and Southwark local authorities have not lodged petitions or expressed any formal opposition to the Bill.
In essence, the Bill comes to us with one specific issue to which we have been alerted, which we must address and which will be amended. That has to do with the power to debate and decide who takes over from the LDDC. Otherwise, everyone who has an interest believes that this is the right framework.
Newham has been involved and has been quite active. However, it is happy. Southwark has been less active, but has expressed no opposition. As we have heard, Tower Hamlets petitioned on the Bill, but reached an agreement with the docklands corporation in June 1993. One of the things that were agreed in that negotiation was that Tower Hamlets would have to be consulted in respect of the successor body and, in establishing successor bodies, the LDDC agreed to use reasonable endeavours to secure local representation on them. Tower Hamlets got something out of that and I hope that that is welcomed across the political divide, because it is clearly better than the previous position.
The corporation has also undertaken to make representations to the Secretary of State prior to any form of transfer of functions recommending that adequate financial provisions be made for successor bodies.
It is in respect of that that I should like to make a parochial point. The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction wrote to me recently, as he did to other hon. Members, saying that he was contemplating de-designation as a process.
One of the areas that he was contemplating de-designating first is that strip of the Southwark docklands from London bridge along the Thames eastward along the south bank roughly to the King's stairs adjacent to the Rotherhithe tunnel. That is the pan-handle of Southwark docklands.
There is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps before long, de-designation of that area and transfer to the local authority, should happen. I have been offered a meeting with the Minister. I shall take that up and discuss the detailed issues.
The issue that the community in Southwark is concerned about with regard to that area and the rest is that there should not be de-designation until we are sure that other public authorities have not only the power but the wherewithal to carry on and complete anything that is left incomplete. Equally importantly, they must have the finance to continue to maintain the jobs that have been started. For example, it is no good creating a lovely new park, a new water sports centre, the Surrey docks urban farm, the Lavender dock educational centre at the Pump House or any of the other things if we then say, "Thank you very much. It is yours now" and the Government do not provide, through the local authority or someone else, the wherewithal to fund them on an ongoing basis.
The precondition for me to say yes, go on and hand it back to Southwark, the precondition for the people of Southwark to say the same, and I suppose the precondition in many ways for the hon. Members for Bow and Poplar and for Newham, South, who represent the other parts of docklands, and for the Labour Front Bench, will be to say, "Fine, hand the docklands back to local authorities but do not give us the job without giving us the resources." That is a fundamentally important plea. I am all in favour of moving on, but I am not in favour of moving on without the resources to do it.
The Bill is a measure to bring the management of docklands up to date; a Bill which has no expressed


objection outside this place; a Bill which addresses some of the real concerns about how to look after a large number of people in a dangerous area but one with huge potential; and a Bill which has now addressed the question of how we will proceed hereafter by saying that there will be further parliamentary debates about it. Much of the Bill is technical, much of it is precedented and some of it is new.
Tonight, in responding to the Bill, I hope that hon. Members will feel that they can contribute to setting the framework for docklands in the new legislative structure. I hope that the debate will be listened to outside and that those who represent the area, know it, work in it, love it and believe in it can, as a result of the process, get a docklands that is more people centred, more people safe and more people beneficial than in the past. I think that that is the motivation of the corporation in the Bill.
For people who are an unelected quango, they have been trying very hard. I have to say that in the Bill they are doing fairly well. But I will not be complacent. I will not let them off the hook. I want them to continue trying even harder. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his introduction to the Bill. As he said, the Bill is promoted by the London Docklands development corporation, which has been in existence since 1981. It proposes to give that body new powers to make byelaws relating to the former docks and the areas surrounding them. That is certainly necessary for the safety of people who live in the area and who might wish to work or take their leisure there. We do not argue with those propositions; indeed, we welcome them.
There is doubt among some of the organisations involved whether those duties should have been given to the London Docklands development corporation in the first place if it is a partly time-expired body and if it is intended that it should eventually give up its present role. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to deal with that aspect. There is another aspect to the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State powers to extend the role of the development corporation's byelaws outside the area covered by the London Docklands development corporation, which is a bit of a novelty.
Initially, I shall concentrate on what I regard as the big question about the Bill, which is clause 22. That clause empowers the Secretary of State to dispose of all or part of the London Docklands development corporation to anyone he likes. It seems that the Secretary of State will be able to transfer the entire assets of the London Docklands development corporation to any person, including, as I suggested, Mr. Asil Nadir in grateful thanks for his contribution to Tory party funds. I am not suggesting that that is the Government's intention, but they would be empowering themselves to do that under clause 22.
Disposing of assets on this scale is not a private matter and Labour Members believe that it should not have been included in a private Bill. The London Docklands development corporation has assets totalling at least £1,200 million. Any disposal of those assets, which have come to the development corporation as a result of money paid out by the taxpayer, should not be smuggled through

as the subject of a private Bill. Obviously, it was something which the Government wanted done. The development corporation did not introduce the proposition. It was included because the Department of the Environment asked the corporation to include it in the Bill. That suggests a cavalier attitude on the Government Benches about the control of public funds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing is in the Bill at the request of my Department. Indeed, when I speak later, I shall argue that clause 22 is unnecessary. It may be a matter for debate in Committee. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing is in the Bill at the behest of my Department. I am totally neutral in relation to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister telling the House that his Department was not consulted on the contents of the Bill and was not aware of clause 22 before the Bill was printed?

Mr. Baldry: Of course, we were consulted on the Bill, as indeed we are consulted on most private measures. The promoters of Bills use their common sense and consult the Government on whether we are likely to oppose the provisions of a Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we tend to be neutral on the provisions of private Bills. I repeat that there is nothing in the Bill at our behest. I will certainly be arguing that clause 22 is unnecessary, for the reasons that I shall set out when I have the opportunity, as I hope I will in due course, of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dobson: It opens up the possibility of a rather more neutral attitude by the Department of the Environment, as the sponsoring Department for one of these organisations, to suggest that it scarcely knew and certainly did not care that clause 22 was in the Bill. Certainly, the Department does not appear to have pointed out that it is an unprecedented clause and the propositions that have been put forward as precedents have never permitted the disposal of public assets on this scale without recourse to the House of Commons for permission for each such disposal.
If the Minister is suggesting that clause 22 be withdrawn, I am sure that that will whole-heartedly be supported by Labour. It would not have been a bad idea if the Minister's officials or one of his colleagues had suggested that in the first place. We would not have had to go to all the bother of tracking it down, making points of order and identifying clause 22 as a novelty in a way that apparently no one in the House of Lords managed to do.

Mr. Shore: We have just heard a remarkable statement on the most interesting question of consultation with different Government Departments. Does my hon. Friend think that there might have been some useful consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry? Surely it is odd that we should be debating this Bill, which seeks to regulate and control business activities in the docklands water area, when at the same time the House is considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which at the stroke of a pen would enable the President of the Board of Trade to scupper the whole Bill. What guarantees do we have that that will not happen?

Mr. Dobson: My right hon. Friend makes a good point and the Minister may explain that the clause is unnecessary


because the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will provide all the powers that are necessary. That would certainly be the logic of the position. This may be a minor effort at deregulation, and perhaps the London Docklands development corporation is seeking to ingratiate itself with its masters in putting forward the proposition.
It must be said that secret transfers of assets, secret subsidies and precious little role for elected representatives have always been part and parcel of the history of the LDDC. It is difficult to find out how much public money has been going into docklands because the Government and the LDDC have refused to disclose the full information. Time and again, Ministers have responded to detailed questions from Opposition Members by saying that the information was not available.
It is right that the House should look at the question of expenditure. As the Bill stands, there is a proposition that the LDDC can ask the Minister to agree to hand over all or some of the property, and also that the Secretary of State would be empowering himself to decide what to do. We must look at the priorities that the LDDC and the Government have been following in relation to docklands.

Mr. Simon Hughes: One of the benefits of doing this job is that one gets some information. I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman by giving him the figures that I have received for capital employed, which is cash expended by the LDDC from its setting up to 31 March 1993—the end of the past financial year. The total, from Government grants plus income from property disposals, rents, planning fees and miscellaneous sources, is £1,617 million.

Mr. Dobson: My own guesswork would have been wrong by just £17 million, and I hope that the rest of the figures that I quote on the basis of the inadequate public information will be equally accurate.
One of the problems with docklands and the question of large public subsidies is that the LDDC's activities are complicated by the existence of the enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. It is clear that billions of pounds of private and public money have been poured into London docklands and into the Isle of Dogs. The question arises, why are the people of the Isle of Dogs so dissatisfied with their circumstances that they recently voted in a Nazi to represent them on their local council?
That may be an example of the Government throwing money at a problem. The trouble is that they appear to have thrown and missed, because the money—instead of going to the people who needed it in docklands, the voters—has been snapped up by, generally speaking, a lot of foreign property speculators. In docklands, and on the Isle of Dogs in particular, thousands of people are living in bad housing and many of them are out of work. Many young people have poor job prospects and the Government have not thrown any public money at them.
The Government and the LDDC have thrown money at property developers. Of the LDDC's funds of £1.6 billion, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey confirmed, roughly 75 per cent., or £1.2 billion, has gone into supporting and subsidising property development. To be fair, the LDDC has put money into housing and 16,000 new dwellings have been built in the area. However, only 4,000 of those have been for council or housing association tenants at rents that local people can afford. On the Isle of Dogs, 3,055 houses have been built, but only 583 are available for rent at rents which local people can afford.
Over the past four years, about £20 million has been spent on social housing by the LDDC in docklands. There is still a desperate shortage and that shortage of housing that has been exploited by the British National party to promote racial strife and violence. The LDDC claims—this is the sort of thing on which it spends its money—that, since it came into existence, 40,000 jobs have been created in docklands. However, only 13,000 of those were new jobs. The rest were transfers of jobs from outside. It is estimated that, of the new jobs, only 3,000 went to people living, not in docklands, but in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Southwark as a whole.
Meanwhile, 15,000 existing local jobs have disappeared as many existing employers have been forced or bought out because their continued existence was seen to fit in badly with some of the development that was going on. The jobless figures in 1981 were 3,500, and in 1993 were 5,500—an increase of 54 per cent. Those unemployment figures, and the large numbers of young people who were born, went to school and live on the Isle of Dogs and who cannot get a job, have been exploited by the British National party to promote racial attacks, particularly on Bengali people.
Despite the money that has been poured into docklands, jobs for people who have grown up there are scarce and are getting scarcer. The job prospects for young people are getting worse. Local people are living in rundown properties, and housing waiting lists have risen by one third since the LDDC came into existence. The number of homeless people has almost trebled to 4,800. That is still going on.
Just before Christmas, the Isle of Dogs neighbourhood proposed to transfer land at nil cost to the East London housing association so that it could be used to build housing for people living on the Isle of Dogs, and it urged the LDDC to do the same. Between them, that would have permitted the building of 450 new homes, most of them on the Isle of Dogs. The Housing Corporation agreed to that idea in principle. The LDDC has not just rejected that—according to my informant, it has not even replied to the suggestion.
Meanwhile, in many parts of docklands, and again particularly on the Isle of Dogs, residents have had to put up with a great deal of noise, vibration, dust, disturbance and—for a considerable period—the loss of their television signal because of office development and the transport connections that were being made for that development.
Office building has boomed, and Canary wharf on the Isle of Dogs is a supreme example. It is a symbol of the 1980s—an unfinished, half-empty office development. It is estimated that Canary wharf alone received £1,600 million in subsidies from the taxpayer. That is £1,600 million for speculative offices, and £20 million for housing for ordinary people. The land sale, the help with transport connections and the enterprise zone tax allowances added together give the figure of £1,600 million for the taxpayer subsidy for the building of Canary wharf.
All that has come from a Government who cannot find money for London's hospitals, for the Northern line, for homes for the homeless, for people trying to start a family while living with their in-laws and for fighting crime in docklands. They could, however, find £1,600 million to help a Canadian property speculator who was so incompetent that, despite getting £1,600 million of taxpayers' money, he went bust. That was the ultimate expression of the Government's inner-city policies.
When looking at the people who may wish to decide to hand over part of the LDDC's property, or at Secretaries of State who may then wish to authorise that, it must be remembered that they tend to follow fashion. I have looked recently at the announcements that were made when the Canadian company Olympia and York was announced as the rescuer of the work at Canary wharf. An article in The Times by Barbara Amiel was entitled "The man who made the canary fly." Not to be outdone, The Sunday Times described the company as
The quiet man who will make the canary sing.
A little later, after it all fell apart, we had The Observer headlines such as "This Canary Won't Sing", "Olympia and York's Leaning Tower of Debt" and "Nightmare in docklands."
Should anyone think that it was not an establishment set-up that gave us Canary wharf, I commend to them Ms Barbara Amiel's article, which said, referring to the Chelsea flower show:
Corporate tents dotted the grounds. Robin Leigh-Pemberton, Governor of the Bank of England smiled at Lord Rippon. Lord Rothermere bowed to the Princess of Wales. Cabinet Ministers exchanged cautionary tales. An onlooker might have heard the contented voices of London's own, happy amongst themselves. In the middle of this and that, a small man with an ebullient smile dashed over to introduce himself to the president of Olympia and York, the construction company that was sponsoring the occasion. It was Mr. Brian Griffiths, head of the policy unit at No. 10.
They were all in it. They all believed that the developers of Canary wharf could walk on water. It turned out that they could not.
I believe that Ministers, the British establishment and the banks involved all demonstrated themselves to be a collection of hapless clowns in the backing that they gave to Canary wharf. Once it had failed, they decided to do anything to bail it out. Banks ran round like headless chickens, not trying to recover money from Canary wharf but closing down dozens of small businesses throughout the country and all over docklands in an effort to recoup the money that they had lost. The LDDC was wringing its hands. The Government extended the period of the special enterprise zone tax allowances to help bail it out.
Then the Government agreed to build the extension to the Jubilee line and helped Canary wharf obtain a £100 million loan from the European investment bank, also in an effort to bail it out. All the while, the people who live on the Isle of Dogs, the people who live in poor housing whose lives have been made a misery by the construction work, the people who find it difficult to find jobs, and the people who are disappointed and hurt that their children and grandchildren cannot find jobs, have been ignored by the Government, the LDDC and the developers. They are desperate for new and better homes. They are desperate for jobs for themselves and their children. They are outraged that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been poured instead into the marbled halls of the speculators.
It is the epitome of all that is wrong with Britain that when people move into the office block that is the most spectacular failure of a property development they will look down on the only part of Britain that has voted for a fascist to represent them in Parliament in recent times—not in Parliament, on the local council.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) laughs. He apparently thinks that it is funny that fascists represent

people anywhere in Britain. In docklands we see people who are absolutely sickened by the way in which they have been treated and want to be treated better. They note the contrast between all the money that has been poured into the pockets of the property speculators and all the money that has not been provided to make their lives decent. The only people who speak up for them are those in the Labour party.

Ms Mildred Gordon: I grew up facing a grim dock wall in The Highway in east London. Although I was lulled to sleep at night by the sound of ships' horns, I had to climb to the third floor of my father's house to see the tops of cranes. If I wanted to look at the water I had to walk to Tower Hill gardens, which was 15 or 20 minutes away, or to King Edward memorial park in Shadwell. When the docks closed and my neighbours lost their jobs with the Port of London Authority and hit hard times, it was sad and bad for people in the district.
As time went on and the dock area became derelict, it was obvious that something needed to be done. The Government decided to take the project out of the hands of democratically elected bodies and set up an appointed quango, the London Docklands development corporation. If the people of the area were blighted by the closure of the docks, they were blighted a second time by the setting up of the LDDC. It has brought them no good. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has pointed out the failure of the LDDC to provide the desperately needed housing in the area. Seventy five per cent. of the housing that it built was for sale. The housing for rent was luxury housing that local people could not afford.
The Government and the LDDC bear a direct responsibility not only for the election of the measly British National party councillor—whom we shall get rid of—but for the racial antagonism and hatred that have developed in the area. Racial violence has grown while desperate people fight for the few resources in the area and the few houses that have been built. The affordable places that the Isle of Dogs neighbourhood built to house local people have not been built with the blessing of the LDDC. It took years before we were able to build Masthouse terrace because the LDDC caused delays. Then everyone wanted the few houses that were built. Yet it should have been possible to build thousands of homes for affordable rent. That vast area of land available could have solved the chronic housing problems of the area once and for all. The opportunity was wasted and those whom local people still call yuppies moved in while their own plight was worse than ever and no one seemed to care.
No jobs resulted from the setting up of the LDDC. The LDDC policy of property speculation meant that higher land prices forced out local businesses that employed local people. The unemployment rate in Tower Hamlets in the past few months has gone not down but up again. Jobs for local people were not created, despite all the money that went into the area. It has been estimated that every job that was created cost £45,000—what chronic mismanagement, what chronic waste of public money.
From 1981 to 1992, the LDDC received £1.6 billion grant in aid in addition to other concessions in the enterprise zone such as capital allowances, rates


allowances, tax allowances and so on. There was no trickle-down effect, as the LDDC and the Government had prophesied.
The whole Canary wharf project was madness. It was madness to build that huge edifice of offices isolated with no adequate public transport to reach it. When the Government sought to remedy the position, there was crazy mismanagement again. The docklands highway cost £650 million to construct. The Limehouse link is the most expensive mile of road that has ever been built. Despite assurances to the contrary, the docklands highway is used for commuter traffic to pass through Tower Hamlets. One only has to go to Tower Hamlets on any weekday evening to see that the traffic jams on the A 13 are as bad as ever. Come any evening and see how that £650 million has been wasted. The Government held up the building of the Jubilee line extension for £400 million and insisted that the money had to come from private industry. The Jubilee line extension is still not started and yet the Government have thrown the money away on roads.
The St. Vincent estate was knocked down to build the Limehouse link and 500 homes went by the board. Rehousing those people is one of the sore points that caused the trouble that led to the election of the British National party candidate.

Mr. Spearing: As Member of Parliament for a neighbouring constituency I pass through my hon. Friend's constituency frequently. I noticed that the site that was occupied by the St. Vincent estate is not above the enormous tunnel. Was the estate originally demolished to provide for that tunnel and if not, why were those flats not refurbished, as those on the other side of the road have been, instead of making the area into a blank site?

Ms Gordon: That is a good question. Most local people think that the LDDC picked the route that destroyed 500 units of public sector housing because it wanted the land for office developments or to sell off for expensive private housing. It could have built the road along the foreshore or in a tunnel instead of building a cut-and-cover road and then it would not have had to pull down the St Vincent estate. The bottom fell out of the market, no one wanted office developments or luxury housing and the land remains unused.
Although I wrote to the LDDC on behalf of local people and said that they had discussed plans and wanted affordable housing, council housing and community centres and so forth on the site, the LDDC has no intention of building anything of the kind. It never consults local people and it never does what they want. That is not its way.
Let us look at some other aspects—beyond the pantomime of the Jubilee line extension, which the Government and the LDDC have postponed over and over again—that is irritating local people. Let us consider why the people whom I represent and I do not feel that we ought to give further powers to the LDDC, which has not managed well the powers that it has.
The docklands light railway extension to Lewisham has been on the cards for a long time. It will cause a lot more disturbance of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras described. Local people have literally been made to eat dirt—dirt and dust seeps into their houses and they suffer from the noise of pile driving. Does the Minister know what pile driving sounds like night

and day? It can drive people mad. Local people have put up with that for years and now they are being asked to put up with more of it for the building of the docklands light railway.
Local people wanted that extension of public transport and could see that it had benefits—or some, if not all, did. Members of the Millwall park users group—the park will be taken over for a long time and people will lose that amenity while the railway extension is built—and other petitioners against the Bill spent many months preparing evidence for the House of Commons and House of Lords Select Committee. The Committee assured them and the neighbourhood that Island Gardens station would be built underground. I asked the Minister, in the Chamber, for a community trust fund to be set up with £1 million to compensate people for the loss of amenities during the years that the extension was being built. The residents could have controlled that trust fund and provided other amenities for the community, as a substitute for the football pitch, the park and all the other things that would be out of action.
In its wisdom, the House of Lords Committee decided that the primary purpose was to compensate local people by means of capital investment, which would enhance the area, rather than by handouts—it considered that the trust that I asked for was a handout—through a community trust or exceptional compensation payments. It also decided that the new underground Island Gardens station would be proposed as compensation for people in the area. Some people were satisfied with the proposal that the station would be underground, and that it would be properly staffed and that Millwall park would be levelled off and reinstated, which would improve the area.
After all their work and all those petitions and discussions, we have suddenly heard that the money is not there and that Island Gardens station might be deleted. Hon. Members might think that the docklands light railway is a great amenity for the community, but 25 per cent. of islanders do not live within reasonable walking distance of a station. If Island Gardens and Mudchute stations are not included in the Lewisham extension, another 25 per cent. of the community will not have the benefit of living within walking distance of a station on the direct line to Lewisham. The DLR primarily serves the business area and not the residential area. Many residents have a long walk to stations and the new proposal to delete Island Gardens and to let the community down, after having what local people considered were serious discussions, will make the position much worse.
A spur line is suggested for Island Gardens and Mudchute, but the local community has totally rejected that idea as trains would be infrequent and it is not what was promised or what they want. Everyone is asking when the trains will run in the evening and at weekends. They still stop at 9 o'clock at night and there are no trains on Saturdays and Sundays. People cannot go anywhere by train then. They have to wait in the cold for the infrequent buses.
So much for LDDC management and policies. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will agree that it has taken a long time for the Beckton extension to come into use. We are promised it next month—

Mr. Spearing: It is a year overdue.

Ms Gordon: Yes, it is a year overdue—so much for the way in which the LDDC manages things.
What about access to the water? I spoke to the Docklands sailing club today. Its members told me that if they want access to the LDDC-owned slipway they have to obtain permission each time that they want to use it and to travel to pick up the permit, which is very inconvenient. When the club holds a big event and its small car park is not big enough, it has to pay £50 a day for parking at Arnhem wharf. That would be fine if the car park was decent, but the site is littered with bollards and large potholes. What will the LDDC charge other local groups for decent parking—the sailing club is a charity—which is essential? We had enough trouble when the arena opened and there were no car parks or toilets. We must ask such questions if the LDDC is to have more powers.
Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1987, I have continually raised the question of access to the waterfront with officers of the LDDC. They once gave me a briefing downstairs with maps and so forth and showed me all the areas where there is supposed to be access to the waterfront. Many buildings were allowed to be built only if public access was provided. My secretary, who lives on the Isle of Dogs, said, "Just a minute. That long piece of waterfront looks as though you can walk along it, but there is a brick wall across it and you can't walk along but have to go round and along the road." She pointed to another place that looked as though one could walk along, but said that one can only go so far before having to scramble through mud and dog mess to get across to the other part of the path.
When the tall ships came along the river there was a great fuss when local people tried to see them. They were stopped by jets of water that shot up from the ground and by guards on land that was marked down as public open space. I have raised the matter over and over again.
In one press release, Michael Pickard was seen doing some bolt-cutting to open some space, but that was symbolic. I asked the LDDC to put up signs on every piece of public open space to say that the public had access to it. I also asked for street furniture and benches so that in hot weather, in an area with little parkland—it will be worse when Millwall park and Island Gardens are taken up by the building of the docklands light railway extension—people can sit by the water, get a breath of fresh air and cool off. Did the corporation do that? No. There are a few signs now, but, by and large, nothing has been done. A paltry sum would have been involved. The corporation has had millions—billions—but it cannot do that little thing for local people.
Local people have little for which to thank the LDDC and have had little joy out of its control over the area. This is the time at which we should be considering documents and Bills in connection with the running down and closing of the LDDC and the handing over of its tasks to the elected local authority. It is a strange time at which to be discussing extending its powers, especially given that it has mismanaged everything that it has handled so far.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I start by thanking the board members and officers of the LDDC who have answered some of my questions and met at least some of my objections—as best they can—since I started to examine the Bill. I make no secret of the fact that I doubted

the need for the Bill and still have doubts about its contents. I agree, however, that there is a legal vacuum surrounding docklands, especially as regards the water itself and the areas immediately adjacent to it, and that that vacuum needs to be filled.
Originally, the docks were heavily policed, with a big wall, dock gates and high security. They fulfilled a special purpose under the dock companies and subsequently the Port of London Authority. The purpose of that area of water has now changed completely. It not now primarily an area for work but an area of public access, for leisure and recreation. We therefore need a different set of legal bases or byelaws for it.
The main question is whether a body set up temporarily, which is known to be going out of existence in the next few years, is the best body on which to confer additional powers by an Act of Parliament. That is why I have had doubts about the Bill, even though local authorities and others have understandably not opposed it. I understand, too, why recreational bodies such as rowing clubs and sailing organisations and the navigation authorities also see the need for byelaws, and I shall come to them in a minute.
Let us first look at the procedural problem, part of which we have discovered today and which has in any case become a little more acute for the reasons hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—that deregulation and the place of statutory instruments are now very much in the air as a result of the controversial Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
I shall not quote clause 22 extensively, but it deserves quoting in principle. Subsection (1) states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any provision of the Act of 1980, the Secretary of State, on the application of the Corporation, may by order at any time transfer to any person ("the transferee") with the agreement of that person all or any part of the undertaking.
I must confess that when, amateur-like, I first read the Bill, I thought that the undertaking referred to was the undertaking to abide by the background to the byelaws. In fact, however, the undertaking refers to what we in east London might call the whole shebang.
That is a very considerable power. In the autumn, I corresponded with the promoters of the Bill who agreed that it was a power in which Parliament ought to have some say. They graciously agreed—there was common sense in the decision—that that power and the power in clause 20 should be exercised only subject to the negative resolution procedure of the House.
Acting on my usual instincts, I asked for the minimum rather than the maximum. Perhaps I should have gone further. But at least Parliament was brought into the matter. Perhaps I have become inured to the way in which the LDDC has been operating in the past few years. Parliament has not seen very much of the activities of the LDDC; as we know, it has been a quango under the Secretary of State.
I am glad that that was agreed, but other factors have come into play since then. I am grateful for the fact that my attention has been drawn to two amendments to the original Act relating to the transfer of operations. The original Act was the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that legislation and fought for a long time to get some safeguards written into it. Section 165 says:


Subject to this section. an urban development corporation may, by an agreement made with any local authority or any statutory undertakers and approved by the Secretary of State with the Treasury's concurrence:—

(a) transfer to the local authority the whole or any part of the corporation's undertaking, or
(b) transfer to the statutory undertakers the whole or any part of the corporation's undertakings which consists of a statutory undertaking".
That was common sense, because that was the sort of thing that might happen either during or at the end of the life of the LDDC. I am glad to say that subsection (8) of that same section says that
Such a transfer shall be of no effect until it is approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
There we have a public and general Act relating to the transfer of property.
However, that provision was amended by section 180 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which adds after the words "local authority" the words "or other body". Thus, another public and general Act added to the powers of the Secretary of State and the LDDC to transfer—subject not just to the negative resolution procedure in this case but to an affirmative resolution that could require at least an hour and a half's debate.
I have a question for the Minister and, more particularly, the Committee to which the Bill will no doubt go following tonight's debate. Does the phrase in clause 22,
or any provision of the Act of 1980
refer to the Act of 1980, as amended? I assume that it probably does, in which case, the effect of clause 22 is far greater than some of us may have thought. If it is correct—quite honestly, I do not think any hon. Member could say a definite yea or nay at this stage—it means that clause 22 takes the place, at least in some respects, of the parts of the public and general Acts that I have quoted. That is a very important question. If clause 22 takes the place of those provisions, it means something highly controversial.
One of the matters that we have been discussing in the House in the past few weeks is the extent to which a regulation can change an Act of Parliament. In this case, we have a Bill privately promoted by a body set up by an order under the Secretary of State suddenly providing the Secretary of State and itself with enormously increased powers. That gives rise to questions that the Private Bill Committee may like to look at.
The Government may have seen the problem, too. They may not be too keen on the clause because it creates a closed circuit running something like this: Secretary of State; quango produced by order; quango produces private Bill to give more powers to the Secretary of State. That is not a democratically healthy circle. I shall leave it at that because the Minister and the Committee to which the occupants of the Chair have referred may have views on the matter as well. If, as I confess is the case, these matters have come to light only in the past week—although I was unhappy last October—parliamentary scrutiny has at least been shown to be effective. I do not think that anyone inside or outside the Chamber has been responsible for trying to pull a fast one. The problem has arisen at least partly inadvertently—if, indeed, the provisions have the effect that I fear.
That is the end of what I might call the procedutal prelude. I shall now consider the LDDC and the Bill,

particularly the byelaws contained in it. I will not consider the part relating to transfer, because I have already dealt with it.
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) sees the LDDC and its work in quite the same way as those of us on the north side of the river. I suspect that that difference is due to environmental considerations, because the Surrey docks have shown examples of what some people have said was needed. The late Lord Cross of Chelsea, who chaired the Select Committee of the Lords when the LDDC was set up, said that what was needed was lots of small houses, all with gardens, to rent at reasonable rates. He said that, unfortunately, we on the north of the river would not get them for a while, but that the LDDC might provide them. I suspect that a high proportion of those that it has provided—few enough—are probably in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I therefore forgive him for having what I might regard as a rosy-eyed view of the LDDC's activities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There may be more of such housing on our side of the river, but we have never said that there is enough. On the contrary, many empty private flats are available for rent, but we could have fully occupied social housing, which is urgently needed and which would be willingly occupied.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. It shows just how unsuccessful the LDDC has been, because the Surrey docks, by nature of their size, layout and the fact that most of the docks, apart from the green land on the south dock, has been filled in, offered the maximum opportunities for such development.
The Bill entrenches, if anything, the existence of the LDDC—that temporary statutory body which was hailed, particularly by the former Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, as something akin to a new town corporation. It was the very opposite. New town corporations took lots of parcels of empty private land and put them together for housing and industry, based on a properly planned infrastructure. They created different zones for this, that and the other. The LDDC, however, took over vast areas of publicly owned land—railway land, dock land and gas land—and split it up for private development. It did not ensure that the necessary infrastructure existed.
I accept that the area has miles of roads and tunnels. Millions have been spent on roads, but the railways—

Ms Gordon: What about the docklands light railway?

Mr. Spearing: The DLR was first suggested by the dockland joint committee—the much abused but constructive committee of the Greater London council and the boroughs. In 1978, it published a booklet entitled "Bus, Underground or Tram?" The supertram was chosen. That option was the first proposal for public transport, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) has said, the Beckton extension in Newham will be the last to be, opened. We hope that it will be opened next week and that it will work.
Even if the system works, journeys are long. A person first gets on at Beckton, but to get to the Bank—the expensive extension on which Canary Wharf was predicated—he must change at Poplar. He must then change at Canary Wharf. Two changes must be made


because, in about 10 miles of railway, the electrical system is different. The DLR was the first plan, but it will be the last to be implemented.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar said, many people are employed in small workshops and small industries in docklands. The firms and their proprietors said that the development would fetch a lot of money—I do not blame them for that. They saw it as a capital gain. They either closed their existing firms or, if they wanted to keep going, they had to take sites a long way away. That meant that firms missed the local connections and local people, particularly those in the Canning Town area. Some of the firms have survived, others have not. Some of the industries that came to docklands have, however, brought their workers with them, particularly those who are left in the print industry.
The LDDC was not entitled by statute to set up a community, but it should have provided schools. In my constituency, the south of Newham, south of the A13, which covers a distance as great as from Earls Court to Blackfriars or from the south of Chelsea embankment to the middle of Hyde park, there is no secondary school. Despite the houses and gardens that have been built in New Beckton—those properties are full not of yuppies, but of hard-working local people—no secondary school exists. In the past five years, the three Members who represent Newham have visited Ministers to try to obtain that school, but the Government will not give us one.
I know that the provision of that school is not the responsibility of the LDDC, but the Government have tried to set up the area as a model. The LDDC has not done in Newham what it has done in other areas. We may not have Canary wharf in Newham, but nor do we have what we want. The LDDC has not achieved the regeneration of the community or the regeneration of families—that is what it is supposed to be about.
A suitable legal and constitutional structure does not exist. We have not had that under the LDDC and, given the way in which the transfer of responsibilities is envisaged, it does not look as though we will have a satisfactory structure in the future. The Bill is, perforce, an unwelcome necessity, because the LDDC must have some statutory duties to cover itself and those of us who are responsible for the law. If someone drowns in the dock or there is a need for policing, an authority must have some powers to offer some public order.
I was pleased to note that officials of the LDDC tabled a new clause for the Bill when it was considered in the Lords to provide it with some obligations. Clause 5(1) states:
It shall be the duty of the Corporation, in formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under this Act, to have regard to the desirability of securing the use of the designated areas for a diversity of purposes which may include sporting, recreational, cultural, commercial, energy-related and navigational purposes.
It is a duty to "have regard" not a duty to do and it "may" meet that obligation. At least the obligation is included in the Bill, which is a good thing.
The designated areas are largely water. On the map that has been provided with the Bill, the land areas are, understandably, of limited size because the great bulk of the area is made up of the docks. Clause 7 says that the corporation, as part of its functions under the Act, should

have regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining public access to the waterside.
The clause refers not to the river, but to the docks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar has already mentioned.
The two big remaining docks are the West India docks, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar, and the Royal docks in my constituency. They are 2.5 miles long and probably represent the biggest area of impounded water of its type in the world. They have 15 miles of deep water quays and represent an inestimable potential for London. They are a much underestimated resource. They are, however, expensive to maintain.
One of the good things that the LDDC has done is to re-establish the George V lock. It has also built two new swing bridges and a third is probably to come. It has resuscitated the West India docks lock and built new swing bridges within that system. The wharves are partly the responsibility of the landholders and partly the responsibility of the LDDC. It has told me that, before it is wound up, the wharves will be put into a fit state.
This is a harbour, however, and it is an expensive one to operate. When 10,000 to 15,000 tonne ships were coming into the Royals, lined up on each side—we have all seen the pictures—the costs of maintaining those docks and the West India docks was pooled and was a levy on the cargoes. It was relatively easy to do. However, if the docks are used for recreational purposes, as they will be, the money for them must be collected somehow.
I understand that £1 million a year could be needed for the dock systems. If that money is to be raised solely from the holders of the land around, the choice by the LDDC of the applicants for the local plan, especially in the Royal docks area, will be constrained by the question of who is to pay for those harbour costs. If we still had the Greater London council, which used to manage things such as Crystal Palace sports centre, Kenwood or whatever, it would have been an all-London facility, but, alas, we do not have that agency, which could have taken such administration in its stride.
We have proposals for housing—alas, not a high proportion of the type of homes that my hon. Friends and I wish for. There has been much talk about an urban village, but the housing constraints, debated this very afternoon in the House, mean that it will be difficult to achieve the balance of community that everyone locally wants and the housing that the people in need of housing in east London, from Newham and elsewhere, want.
The Victoria dock is currently used, under the initiative of the Newham borough council, as a magnificent sailing reach, open to the south-west prevailing wind. I do not think that anything should be put in place that would materially affect that magnificent sailing stretch, but there are proposals for bridging and for other crossings of that water.
The rowing course in the Albert Dock is well used, but there may be an opportunity to make extensions, and to create a course to Olympic standards. The course is already used many times a year by the Poplar and Blackwall club on the Thames for youth and national rowing, and it is something of which London can be proud. The pontoon dock could make a small harbour for learning for canoeists and all types of water activity that is not suited to the larger and longer reaches.
The LDDC has created an organisation known as the Royal Docks Management Authority—RODMA for short.


The borough council and I want to know how that organisation will fit in with those recreational demands, and how the money will be raised. I have had no convincing answer to those questions.
In docklands we have part of London's maritime heritage—a heritage of which we can be proud. There are possibilities for working areas of dockland as it was. HMS Warrior was built on the River Lea, only a few hundred yards from the Royal docks, at the old Thames ironworks. That water should be used for all types of purposes, as should the surrounding land. For example, there is a possibility of the university of East London setting up an area on the north side of the Albert dock.
However, the Bill will do very little in those respects. It does not give much vision. It fills in the legal vacuum of the byelaws, which is necessary, but, if we are to judge the future on the performance of the past, we shall not build on firm foundations. The Bill may be passed, with or without clause 22. I believe that there are some fundamental constitutional question marks over that clause. We need something much more radical and practical, and something that will provide the people of east London—indeed., the people of Greater London—with a better statutory and financial basis for the future of the Royal docks and the whole of the dockland area. It is the western extremity of the much-trumpeted Thameside corridor, which is, if not a jewel in the crown of the Government, at least something which they claim. Those claims will not be made manifest without more thought and a much better Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It may be helpful if I make clear the Government's approach to the Bill. Our remit is straightforward. It is to ensure that the provisions of the Bill accord with public policy generally. We have considered the Bill. It has been amended in another place—I understand to take account of the concerns of the boroughs—and we are generally content with its proposals.
The Bill is of a comparatively short compass. It acknowledges that the docks can still hold dangers for the general public and that in those circumstances there is a need for an effective regime to regulate the conduct of people in and around the dock estate, to ensure public health and safety, to prevent pollution and to secure the reasonable and quiet enjoyment of the dock environment.
That is what the corporation's Bill seeks to achieve. It is a thoroughly sensible Bill and it is slightly disappointing that Opposition Members have chosen to impair the speedy progress of the Bill, especially given its primary aim of ensuring the safety of the public in and around the clock estate.

Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister tell us in what way we have impaired the speedy progress of the Bill? All that we have done is to ask questions and raise points and get the promoters of the Bill to accept an amendment that the Government should have sought when they were consulted in the first place.

Mr. Baldry: Given that the hon. Gentleman has spent most of today trying to get the Bill ruled out of order—

Mr. Dobson: No, I have not.

Mr. Baldry: Absolutely. If the hon. Member looks at his point of order and the points that he made earlier, it seems strange that he is now indicating that he wishes the Bill to have a speedy passage.
The hon. Gentleman sought to raise an issue suggesting—

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way again?

Mr. Baldry: Perhaps if I answered the point that the hon. Member initiated, he could then respond to it.

Mr. Dobson: Would not it have been better if the hon. Gentleman had not missed what had gone on earlier because he was not in the Chamber at the time?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman argued that the Bill should be treated as a hybrid Bill because—

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like the hon. Member to identify any point at which I have said anything in the Chamber about this being a hybrid Bill. The only matter that has been challenged is whether it was appropriate to have what would be better in a public general Act in this private Bill.

Mr. Baldry: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that is not arguing that the Bill is a hybrid Bill, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's definition of a hybrid Bill might be. It was clear what the hon. Gentleman's point of order was this afternoon. It was to seek to prevent debate on the Bill. That was the reason why he got to his feet and that was the sole reason why he came to the House. He sought to do two things this evening; one was to pursue that point and the other was to make an election address which doubtless will be used by his party in Millwall. Apart from that, he has not added much to the sum of human knowledge.
However, the hon. Gentleman did raise a point, to which I am seeking to respond, that clause 22 sought to create a new power. I shall deal with that point from the perspective of the Government and it is a matter that the sponsors of the Bill may wish to take on board in Committee. As far as I am concerned, clause 22 does not create a new power. Under section 165 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, as amended by section 180 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, urban development corporations' undertakings can be transferred to any local authority, statutory undertakers or any other body by agreement between the parties with the approval of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State can, by order, transfer urban development corporations' property rights and liabilities to himself. It could therefore be argued quite strongly—indeed, I would argue it if I were on the Committee—that clause 22 may be unnecessary as transfer of the powers to make byelaws for which it seeks to provide could be dealt with under the 1980 Act. As I have said, the Bill's sponsors may wish to take up that point in Committee.
I am saddened by the general tone of the debate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) introduced it in a measured, responsible, positive and constructive way; subsequently, however, we have heard rather negative and destructive speeches. Labour Members have queued up to denounce the work of the LDDC: none could bring himself or herself to say a single decent thing about any of its achievements since its inception.
Let me explain why I find that sad. There are 12 urban development corporations in the country, all of which I have visited—as have my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction and many other Ministers. All the corporations are now in cities and the areas involved are not under the political control of the Conservative party; they are often controlled by Labour.
I am bound to say that in every other area Labour has managed to develop a strong sense of partnership with the development corporations. As my right hon. Friend and I embark each year on the review of the corporate plans of the various corporations, the point made to us in many other areas is not, "This development corporation is imposing terrible things on our area", but, "We welcome what the corporation is doing for our city: we appreciate the opportunities that it offers. We would like its life to be extended, because we see that the whole partnership approach is bringing enormous benefits to our area." It is sad that Labour Members do not appreciate the benefits that the LDDC has brought to their areas and constituents.

Ms Gordon: The Minister seems to be unaware that a fascist was elected to the council in the enterprise zone—the very area over which the LDDC has control, into which it has put so much money and work. The area is seething with discontent. Even if the LDDC's main aim was to promote business, businesses would run a mile from an area of racial violence and constant trouble.
When Labour Members have approached the LDDC asking for help for certain projects and explaining what the community wants, their requests have been largely ignored. Tricks have been pulled like the one involving the docklands light railway: our proposal for a community trust was rejected and we were told that our compensation would be an underground station at Island Gardens. But it has become clear that, with a stroke of the pen, the projected station is to be abandoned. That is our experience—a bad one. Perhaps other areas have had better experiences of urban development corporations.

Mr. Baldry: With respect, I consider that completely fanciful. First, all the local authorities concerned are represented on the development corporation. I am not a stranger to the boroughs concerned; I visit them frequently and meet borough leaders. I am sure that if they had the concerns to which the hon. Lady refers, they would make them clear to Ministers—but they do not. This kind of rhetoric, vocabulary and syntax in references to the LDDC is confined to Labour Members. I do not know whether that is because they feel that, as the development corporations were established by a Conservative Government, they cannot bring themselves to say a decent word about them; but I suspect that that is the only possible reason.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) expressed anxiety about the future of the area once the LDDC's life ended. It has always been accepted that the corporation's existence was finite: it was always part of the agreement with Parliament that, because of the scale of the regeneration that was needed, the corporations would need to take certain powers, but that in due course they would cease to exist and those powers—planning powers, for example—would have to be returned to the boroughs.
My right hon. Friend and I would be more than willing—certainly, I would—to meet hon. Members who

represent constituencies within the LDDC area to discuss a succession strategy. The development corporation is already beginning to work on such a strategy. It knows how much money it has to invest during the remaining period of its existence, and it is engaging in constructive, positive discussions with the boroughs concerned. I am more than willing to discuss the future of the docklands area with Labour Members: I am determined to drag them into the real world and to discuss the achievements and potential of the area for their benefit and that of their constituents.

Mr. Spearing: That invitation illustrates the vacuum that exists: if the debate does nothing else, it will have done that. Let me assure the Minister that visits from successive Ministers—including the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction—have been cordial, on a personal level; but the resources have been available to the wrong people, in the wrong places, in the wrong way.
The Minister said that no appreciation had been expressed. I think that, in my speech, I thanked board members and staff who are constrained by instructions from the Secretary of State and by existing laws; I also said that the LDDC had done a good job in regard to locks, swing bridges and docksides—thanks to a chairman whom I will not name, but who is now being appointed to yet another quango. I hope that he will do well, but I fear that he will not.

Mr. Baldry: I think that the only vacuum has been Labour Members' lack of appreciation and understanding of the LDDC's contribution to the regeneration of the docklands area.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that he could not find the figures showing how much public money had been invested in docklands. During the 13 years of its existence, the LDDC has invested some £1.6 billion of public money, but it has used that money to lever in substantial sums of private money—£6 billion. Every penny spent by the corporation is accounted for. Each year, it publishes its corporate plan and discusses it with local authorities.
The LDDC's deputy chairman, Lord Cocks, is a former Labour Member: indeed, I seem to recall his being a Labour Chief Whip. There is ample cross-party involvement. Everyone seeks to ensure that the money being invested is put to the best possible use for local people. Indeed, throughout its existence, the LDDC—like every other development corporation—has sought to work in partnership with the three local authorities, with private developers, with housing associations and with other statutory bodies.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is committing himself to a burst of open government, will he tell us the cost of capital allowances for individual enterprise zones and for individual developments within them?

Mr. Baldry: I shall gladly answer any parliamentary question that the hon. Gentleman cares to table, provided that it has been deemed to be in order. He will not expect me to be able to answer off the top of my head specific questions such as the one he has just put to me.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks was that there was something covert and unspecified about the way in which development corporations operate. That is not true. Development corporations have money voted by Parliament. This is part of the inner cities vote of my


Department. It is perfectly transparent and perfectly accounted for each year in the corporations' plans. Indeed, it is in the interests of everyone that the expenditure of these bodies be revealed, as it can then be demonstrated clearly that, through the partnership approach that we advocate and promote, it has been possible to lever in substantial sums of private money for every pound of public money that is provided. The public-private partnership has been very much to the benefit of docklands and the rest of that part of London. It has enabled us to provide new roads, railways, tunnels and other facilities.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that for a very long time after the war vast parts of London constituting what is now the docklands development area were left derelict despite administration by Labour Governments and Labour councils? It was in response to that waste that, in the late 1970s, people like Lord Mellish, with Conservative support, argued passionately for this approach, which was put in train by the Conservative Government. In Salter road in Bermondsey, one can now see a transformation that is heart-warming by any standards.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. Everyone recognised that the rundown of the docks and the urban decay, compounded by poor housing and inadequate community facilities, presented an enormous challenge. But the challenge was matched by the potential. The opportunities that were provided were unmatched anywhere in Europe. The London Docklands development corporation has helped to meet the challenge and secure realisation of much of the potential.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman talks about a public-private partnership. Will he tell us the cost of the capital allowances for the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone? One of his predecessors—the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Wales—simply refused to give this information. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that such information will be available?

Mr. Baldry: I thought that I had already answered that question. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am more than willing to provide him with as much information as possible and that I shall certainly answer any parliamentary question that is considered by the Table Office to be in order. I have made it clear several times this evening that it is in the interests of everyone that the fullest possible information about what is happening in docklands be provided.
It is desirable that we demonstrate clearly to the House and to the world at large the success of the partnership approach. It is very sad that the Labour party still has difficulty grasping the concept of partnership between the public and private sectors. What has come through clearly in the speeches of Opposition Members is that the only government they consider worth while is that which they control. It appears that they still regard public-private partnership as total anathema.
Opposition Members have complained of the insufficiency of new housing in docklands. It is clear that they have been walking around with their eyes closed. In docklands, more than 16,000 new homes have been completed. A good 20 per cent. of them are for low-income families. The development corporation has worked with II housing projects—some of them for shared ownership and

some of them for local authority homes. Environmental improvements have been made to 3,500 homes in 40 housing estates. The corporation has supported a whole range of initiatives right across the boroughs involved. Substantial sums of public and private money have gone into new office and other developments.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made scathing comments about jobs. The fact is that the number of jobs has increased from 27,000 in 1981 to 55,000 today. That is a very substantial increase and all the projections indicate that the number will quadruple to well over 200,000 by the year 2001. The docklands development corporation has also been investing substantially in skills of and for local people, again working in partnership with local authorities and other agencies. It has invested about £76 million to assist. docklands schools and post-16 colleges; it supports training schemes and more than 5,000 training places have been sponsored in a range of occupational skills; and schools have been helped in a variety of ways. I am glad that boroughs such as Newham and Tower Hamlets have worked closely with the development corporation on memoranda of agreement and the Accord programme and on a range of community projects such as the recently opened North Woolwich children's centre in Newham and the health centre for family care in Wapping. Currently, 84 voluntary and community groups receive funding support from the corporation.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not give way.
I could go on almost all night explaining the achievements in docklands: new jobs, new housing and a substantial number of small businesses and work spaces. I could talk about the extension of the Jubilee line to docklands and of the docklands light railway to Lewisham, which is another private finance initiative levering in money from the private sector to add to money raised in the public sector. I could talk until dawn, but that would still not impress Opposition Members, who are convinced that nothing good could ever come of the development corporation. They are determined for theological reasons never willingly to acknowledge that the corporation can do anything good. People who live in the area—

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times. People who live in the area have seen the new offices, the new housing and the new businesses and jobs that have come to docklands as a result of the Government's substantial investment in the LDDC which has been supported by the private sector. I only hope that in time Opposition Members will understand that the solid foundations laid by the LDDC will continue for many years to come, to be built on for the benefit of docklands and, more important, for the people who live there.
The Bill is a sensible measure. I am saddened that its progress through the House has not been speedier. It is intended to add to the safety of those who live and work in the docklands area, and the Government wish it a speedy passage.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak for a second time.
I wish first to pick up on one or two of the Minister's comments, for which some of us are grateful. The Minister cannot complain that progress has been slow. So far, today's debate has lasted two hours and seven minutes. Since the Bill received a First Reading, there has been no delay other than that which was necessary while the Bill went to the Examiners, and it has won the first slot available for private Bills since then. We are all seeking to make good progress. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we welcome the fundamentals of the Bill regarding the making of byelaws and the governing of water in the area, and the Minister has heard no criticism about them.
If I were to divide the debate between the two sides of the House, I should say that on the Minister's side the argument is that everything in the docklands garden is rosy and that on this side people are saying that everything is not. The objective evidence tends to support the views expressed by those on this side. Of course, there are good things in docklands and the Minister was fair enough not to criticise me for saying otherwise. However, the most telling point from this side of the House is that, despite all the money being invested, there will never be a satisfactory result unless the people themselves are allowed much more opportunity to decide about that money. People will never be happy if they are told how their money is to be spent and if an undemocratic committee makes the planning decisions. The people themselves have a view. In the east end, in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, people have very strong views and are perfectly able to express them given half the chance.

Mr. Dobson: As the Minister would not give way, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wanted to urge the Minister to urge the LDDC to agree to produce and to publish figures that showed how many of the remaining jobs in docklands, how many of the jobs transferred to docklands and how many new jobs in docklands had gone to people living in docklands. Until the development corporation does that, it will not be trusted in terms of jobs by local people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Mr. Hughes: I agree entirely. One of the points with which we must deal is how we reconcile European legislation and local labour agreements. It is no good the LDDC making general points when all the results of its efforts do not go to the local community. Speaking for my constituency—the position is not dissimilar in Tower Hamlets—I point out that we have some of the highest unemployment in the country. When people see work being done and new jobs being created on their doorsteps, and when they cannot have those jobs, there is bound to be discontent.
I now turn to the central technical and drafting point of the debate—clause 22 and "the undertaking" referred to there. If we look at the definition clause, clause 2, we find a definition—perhaps I should say an only slightly illuminating definition—of "the undertaking". The amended definition reads as follows:
'"the undertaking' means the undertaking of the Corporation in connection with the designated areas, as from time to time authorised, or any part thereof and includes any functions conferred on the Corporation by or under this Act".

It is probably the case, as the Minister said, that the Local Government, Land and Planning Act 1980 gives the Government the power to hand over undertakings to whomsoever they will under various proceedings. The Bill seeks to deal specifically with the byelaw provisions and to decide where they go. That is my understanding, which seems to be consistent.
None the less, if we are giving byelaw powers to the LDDC, it is logical for us to want to know where those powers and the other substrata powers will go in future. We can have that debate in Committee. If the Committee is satisfied that there is no need to have different legislation and if we are happy with the substantive Act, we shall be happy with the Bill. None the less, that is a proper matter for debate. The crucial issue is where the powers, whether byelaws or substantive powers, will go.

Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if, in his wisdom, the Minister had decided that clause 22 is unnecessary, it might have been sensible if he or his officials had given that view to the LDDC? Most of our debate tonight would then have been quite unnecessary and the Minister might have been able go to his supper rather earlier.

Mr. Hughes: We shall never know why that did not happen. The Minister accepted that there has been consultation. Private Bills are sent to the Government so that they can give their views on it. The Government might have spotted that point earlier. Perhaps no one grasped the issue at an early stage.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the definition clause was amended. However, it is still ambiguous. The undertakings established by the Bill are undertakings of obligation rather than undertakings of business. The definition clause says:
'the undertaking' means the undertaking of the Corporation in connection with the designated areas, as from time to time authorised, or any part thereof and includes any functions conferred on the Corporation by or under under this Act.
The word used is "includes". That does not mean that the clause excludes everything else. The clause includes the words "in connection with". Land within, say, a few hundred metres of the dock could well come within that definition. All this needs tidying up in a big way.

Mr. Hughes: Not only the hon. Gentleman, but I and others share that view. In terms of explicit, clear drafting, the definition clause does not get us much further than it would have done if it had not been included. There is a little exercise for us all to do. The moral of the story is that we must all go away with two tasks in terms of drafting. First, we could all try to make a better hash of what we are trying to do in clause 22 and try to ensure that things say what they are meant to say. Under clause 5 we have an addition, by amendment, giving a general duty as to designated areas. It may be, now that the promoters have accepted the principle of the general duty and been more specific, we could make an improvement on that, too, to make sure that we meet the needs of the people for whom the Bill is being promoted.
Let me now deal with the more factual questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), both in his speech and in interventions, dealt with the provision of services for docklands—housing, job creation, infrastructure and investment. We have dealt with figures setting out how


much money has been spent in docklands and there is a perfectly acceptable and agreed breakdown there. It is correct to say that the £1.6 billion includes only £155 million for social housing, so social housing has not been the core commitment. In single subject heading terms, the core commitment has been roads and transport. All dockland Members of Parliament would say that we need more housing investment and in particular more such investment to meet the needs of those who are either inadequately or badly housed or not housed at all.
An inspection of the Isle of Dogs figures or the Bermondsey figures shows that the nature of houses built is such that there is a significant mix. This was done for social mix purposes. In the Isle of Dogs, the owner-occupied figure is 30.1 per cent., private rented housing is 11.3 per cent., housing association housing is 10.9 per cent. and council housing is 47.7 per cent. The need is clearly for significantly more social housing.
It is quite possible to talk about demand for private housing until one is blue in the face, but it is true to say that there has not been that demand recently. Using the test of need, it is plain that we need more social housing at rents that people can afford. There is a need for more shared ownership and for cheap owner-occupied housing. What we do not need is a lot of luxury housing that lies empty year after year because no one can afford it.

Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Member have any figures showing how much of the money spent on social housing encompasses new spending for entirely new housing or for rehabilitating existing dwellings and how much was spent on houses to replace those knocked down for other purposes by the development corporation?

Mr. Hughes: The short answer is no. But it is a good question. Not very much housing has been knocked down. The only significant estate that I am aware of that was knocked down was for the purposes of the Limehouse link. Otherwise, there have been some that were knocked down as part of general improvement schemes, including south of the river, that were much less controversial.
I urge all hon. Members who have an interest in this issue to appreciate that if there are any unsatisfactory or unresolved issues, now is the time to tackle them. There are two reasons for this. The first is that we have the Bill before us and, therefore, have the corporation a bit more by the short and curlies than is usually the case. Secondly, de-designation will start soon and after that it will be too late. I invite them all to compile their lists. I will make: my list, we can aggregate them and we will go to see the Minister, his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction and the corporation officials to get what we can. I say specifically to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) that I include in that list what seems a perfectly reasonable request to make a bid for a station on the docklands light railway at Island Gardens. I had to battle for three years to get underground stations in Bermondsey and Southwark on the Jubilee line and eventually we got them. We need to join the hon. Lady's battle.
There are also small but important matters to consider, such as the need to ensure that we do not price local community groups such as the docklands sailing club out of using facilities because unreasonable rents are charged

for the use of the slipway or for the car park. All those are perfectly reasonable requests, for which we have to go into bat.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Hughes: Just one second. I want to deal with the hon. Lady's other point.
I profoundly agree with the hon. Lady on the question of access to the waterfront. I have a pair of cutters ready sto cut open a gate which is meant to be open, but is locked. I will do so. I do not mind who arrests me for it because it is meant to be open space, it was promised to be so, there is no planning permission to stipulate that it be shut off and we must ensure that the LDDC delivers that promise. In my case, this involves King and Queen wharf and the hon. Lady also has good examples. We must ensure that the advantages to the public, not only of the steps to the river which they always had, but of the new opportunities, are theirs for the taking. It is no good losing all the business and all the docks and still not being able to get to the river. Let us take advantage.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was once my opponent before he went to another seat.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am quite willing to concede that he thrashed me on that occasion. When he talks of property left idle because it is luxury property, does he agree that what has happened in the Dockyard ward in his constituency is a huge transformation and is, generally speaking, for the good? Does he agree that the mix of housing and industrial and retail use in that ward is well balanced and that the LDDC has achieved a great deal?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that there are many good things. There has been support for community groups, a lot of new-build housing, refurbishment in the Old Amos estate which was falling down and new road building. Unlike the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), we have had new schools built in areas which needed them.

Mr. Spearing: Has the hon. Gentleman had new secondary schools?

Mr. Hughes: We have not had new secondary schools; we had new city technology colleges. They were much more controversial, but that is a separate point.

Mr. Heald: I campaigned for them.

Mr. Hughes: Some of us campaigned against them, but they came in all the same.
Many of these new things are wonderful, but the point that I was making earlier was that, if one pulls the plug by de-designating without the resources to ensure that the Surrey water, the footpaths and the pump houses have the resources, we shall be left with a lot of potentially brilliant estates, which will become run down and not be the sort of public wealth which we want it to be. That is a crucial issue for us in the Dockyard and Riverside ward on our side of the river and we are first in the de-designation priority list.
That links with the hon. Lady's final point about the timetable for running down. I do not know whether she has seen the published timetable for de-designation, which the Government are working towards. It begins with south of the river in the current year, mid-1994 for Bermondsey


Riverside, 1995 for Beckton and Wapping, 1996 for the Surrey peninsula in Southwark and Limehouse and Tower Hamlets, 1997 for Isle of Dogs, South Poplar and West Leamouth in Tower Hamlets and 31 March 1998 for the Royals and what are described as the remainder—East Leamouth and the riverside belt in Newham.
That is the timetable, but it is still flexible and I understand that the hon. Lady, like the rest of us who share those views, have been invited to talk to the Minister about that. We need to do so and ensure that the timetable reflects the views of the local authorities, the local communities and ourselves. In my case, I shall make it absolutely clear that we are not yet ready to agree because we do not think that the package deal is yet in place.
To return to the points about employment made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, yes, there have been a lot more jobs created, but he is right to say that every new job is not a net increase in jobs. Many jobs have been lost. There has been a net increase, but even a net increase of jobs does not necessarily mean jobs for the locals. I use that term generically because we are all aware of the issues. The issue is that, in areas of high unemployment, jobs on one's doorstep are the best. That was the merit of the docks in the past.
The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to the general duty. I have alluded to that point and we may want to beef it up in clause 5. He also referred to the importance of the maritime heritage. We must ensure that we maximise that. He also emphasised the need for appropriate infrastructure. We all echo his plea and hope that the houses will not be built without ensuring that there are schools, roads, parks and community facilities to support the people in the area.
The Minister was challenged in respect of his thesis that the docklands has been a wonderful development. Whatever we may think about how it was created, it has done many good things. I am aware that I am now entering controversial territory, but I hope that there will be agreement about my next point.
I am not making a party political point, but one of the reasons why a British National party councillor was elected in the Isle of Dogs was that if one lives in a community where one cannot get a job or a decent home or have all the facilities, and if on one's doorstep there are people with luxury jobs who earn huge salaries and live in luxury housing which they sometimes do not use for half the year and who are clearly living a totally different life, one thinks that the democratic process is letting one down.
Underlying the debate about byelaws, the important debate is that of the future of democracy in docklands. If the Minister has not heard adequately from the three councils concerned, in the case of Tower Hamlets, what the people need, he should talk also to the neighbourhood councils, including the Isle of Dogs and the Wapping neighbourhood councils, where elected representatives will tell him what the people need.

Ms Gordon: I want to tell the hon. Member and the House about a meeting in my constituency at which two sections of the community nearly came to blows—it was touch and go.
The King Edward memorial park, a little local park which is one of the few small areas of open waterfront, was, according to the plaque, given to the people.of the

area in perpetuity. A development company made a bid for a large part of that park to build a luxury tennis centre. Local people with money, who had lately moved into expensive housing in the area, attended the meeting. The older residents opposed the proposal because they wanted to keep access to the whole of their park in which there were knock-about tennis courts where the kids played after school which were well used and there was no charge.
The wealthier people who had moved into the area said, "There isn't a decent tennis centre closer than Islington and it's about time we had one." The elderly residents were worried about their park. That meeting nearly came to blows. The development company had thugs seated around the auditorium. That is the kind of thing that is happening. People feel that they are being pushed out and that they have to fight for the few amenities that they have, let alone to gain more amenities from the LDDC.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is right. The Bill is clearly trying to improve the conditions of people who live and work in and visit docklands. I understand that, and that is why I am promoting the Bill. However, docklands as a whole will be judged by whether it improves the amenities in all respects for those who live and work in and visit the area.
As we are probably in the last few years of the docklands corporation, unless the Government understand that a fundamental change of attitude is still required so that people do not come in, make profits and leave, and do not simply put in their money for their own leverage and results, and unless the Government understand that we still have some of the largest problems in the country—and that means ending and narrowing the social divide—the history of docklands will be only partially successful. It will leave a legacy of discomfort, dissatisfaction and disrepair.

Mr. Spearing: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the planned de-designation timetable, which is controversial in terms of the agreements on planning, particularly for the Royal docks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a factor which the Minister might bear in mind—I am sure that there will be conversations about it—in that the proposals for a single regeneration budget for London and a senior regional director in a multi-ministry team, undoubtedly in Canary wharf, will have great significance because included in the Secretary of State's non-statutory notice was the fact that the whole of the operation of the London Docklands development corporation will come within the purview of that team and a controversial senior civil servant, who has yet to be appointed?

Mr. Hughes: I agree with that comment. We need to watch this space and ensure that we do not lose out in that respect.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. However, hon. Members must not think that it is the end of the battle for docklands to be as the people of docklands need them. That battle goes on. I hope that increasingly the Government will respond. But they will respond well only if they listen well and hear what the people of docklands north and south of the river say.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Sitting suspended.

It being Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Question on supplementary estimates, 1993–94.

CLASS VII, VOTE 1

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £213,686,000 he granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, Improvements and investments, payments to the Housing Corporation, payments to commute loan charges on grants to local authorities including the urban programme and urban development grant, and other sundry services.

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 33

Division No. 163]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hague, William


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Alton, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Amess, David
Harris, David


Ancram, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Arbuthnot, James
Hawkins, Nick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hayes, Jerry


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Heald, Oliver


Atkins, Robert
Hendry, Charles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)


Baldry, Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bates, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Jack, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowis, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brandreth, Gyles
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Brazier, Julian
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bright, Graham
Kilfedder, Sir James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kirkwood, Archy


Burns, Simon
Knapman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Butler, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Knox, Sir David


Clappison, James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Congdon, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Conway, Derek
Legg, Barry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dover, Den
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Maclean, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Durant, Sir Anthony
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mans, Keith


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Marlow, Tony


Fabricant, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Merchant, Piers


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Moate, Sir Roger


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gallie, Phil
Moss, Malcolm


Gillan, Cheryl
Nelson, Anthony


Gorst, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Paice, James





Pawsey, James
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rathbone, Tim
Thomason, Roy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rendel, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Richards, Rod
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Sweeney, Walter





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
McCartney, Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Alice


Corston, Ms Jean
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cox, Tom
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Miller, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dowd, Jim
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Eastham, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Etherington, Bill
Spellar, John


Hall, Mike
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Hanson, David



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Hinchliffe, David
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Hood, Jimmy



Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Questions which Madam Speaker was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (l) of Standing Order No. 53 (Question on voting of estimates, &c.).

ESTIMATES, 1994–95 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1995 a number not exceeding 59,550 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1994–95 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1995 a number not exceeding 157,155 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 125,000 for the Individual Reserves, and a number not exceeding 66,500 for the Territorial Army.

ESTIMATES, 1994–95 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1995 a number not exceeding 78,450 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 19,250 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,500 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1992–93

Question put,
That a sum not exceeding £355,824,479.56 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 198.

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 33.

Division No. 164]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hunter, Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Jack, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Jenkin, Bernard


Alton, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Amess, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ancram, Michael
Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)


Arbuthnot, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Kirkwood, Archy


Baldry, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Bates, Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Batiste, Spencer
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Booth, Hartley
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Boswell, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Bowis, John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Brandreth, Gyles
Legg, Barry


Brazier, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Bright, Graham
Lidington, David


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Lightbown, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Maclean, David


Butler, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Malone, Gerald


Clappison, James
Mans, Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Marlow, Tony


Congdon, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Conway, Derek
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Cran, James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Devlin, Tim
Moate, Sir Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dover, Den
Nelson, Anthony


Duncan, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Sir Anthony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Pawsey, James


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Richards, Rod


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Riddick, Graham


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Gallie, Phil
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gorst, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Sackville, Tom


Grylls, Sir Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shersby, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hanley, Jeremy
Soames, Nicholas


Harris, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Harvey, Nick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hayes, Jerry
Spink, Dr Robert


Heald, Oliver
Sproat, Iain


Hendry, Charles
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)
Stephen, Michael





Streeter, Gary
Waterson, Nigel


Sweeney, Walter
Watts, John


Sykes, John
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thumham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Waller, Gary



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Berry, Dr. Roger
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mahon, Alice


Corston, Ms Jean
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cox, Tom
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dowd, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Eastham, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Enright, Derek
Spellar, John


Etherington, Bill
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Gunnell, John
Worthington, Tony


Hall, Mike



Hanson, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Bob Cyer and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Hood, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94

Question put,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,148,689,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 199, 200 and 261.

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 23.

Division No. 165]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Congdon, David


Alton, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cran, James


Ancram, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandreth, Gyles
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gillan, Cheryl


Burns, Simon
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Cartile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie






Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hanley, Jeremy
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harvey, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Rendel, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)





Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)
Widdecombe, Ann


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Tim Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.


Whittingdale, John





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry
McWilliam, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Mahon, Alice


Cox, Tom
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Pike, Peter L.


Dowd, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Worthington, Tony


Gordon, Mildred



Hall, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Hanson, David
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Hood, Jimmy



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three foregoing Resolutions relating to supplementary estimates, 1993–94, estimates, excesses, 1992–93 and,supplementary estimates 1993–94 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1993 amd 1994: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Homosexual Offences (Prosecution)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Dr. Robert Spink: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first thank you for relinquishing your bed tonight to be with me. I have some dreadful bug and I should have been in my bed tonight. However, what I have to say is most important, so I shall struggle on. I also thank the Solicitor-General who executes his responsibilities with the highest level of integrity.
My local newspaper revealed that 21 homosexual men were arrested committing acts of gross indecency in a public toilet that my children pass on their way to school every day. I congratulate the Essex police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government on their policy and action in prosecuting those perverted men and protecting my community. All public toilets in my constituency now have to be closed at night—locked up—and one of them was taken entirely out of use on police advice to stop the homosexual act that I understand is called "cottaging".
The reduction in the, age of consent and the profound experiences of my constituents suggest an urgent need to review prosecution policy for homosexual offences and that is why I am raising the matter tonight.
I will defend the right of homosexuals to live without discrimination and in dignity—indeed, I welcome loving and caring relationships between all people—but there can be no equality between natural sexual intercourse and buggery, which is wrong because it is medically dangerous, social destructive and unnatural. It is against nature's laws. We must protect immature teenage boys from exploitation by homosexual men who tend to be more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts and live within a corrosive subculture.
Section 12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, as amended in 1967, gives that it is a felony for a person to commit buggery with another person or an animal, with the exception of consenting males who have attained the age of 21. Crown prosecutors must be concerned with two criteria in deciding whether to prosecute any offence, including buggery. First, there must be evidential sufficiency and, secondly, the prosecution must be in the public interest.
I will show that the public interest is best served by an uncompromising prosecution policy and by setting out the various issues and arguments covering equality and life style, immaturity, freedom, health and health education, promiscuity, the buggery lobby Stonewall's tactics and many other issues.
I will start with discrimination. The law as it now stands does not in any way criminalise homosexuality itself or discriminate against homosexuals. It simply prevents the sodomy of teenage boys, all women, small children and animals. The proposed reduction in the age at which buggery would be legal would increase discrimination, on the basis of gender, by making buggery legal with a teenage boy, but keeping it illegal with a woman of any age in or out of marriage. That would indeed be discriminatory.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Why should there be an age of consent for an act of perversion at all?

Dr. Spink: My hon. and learned Friend makes his point most succinctly, and I thank him for that.
I come to the quite different argument of equality. Stonewall has predicated its case on the falsehood that there is equality between the sex acts—the point that my hon. and learned Friend has just raised. Of course, all sexual acts are not equal. The acts of incest, paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and buggery have been outlawed over centuries in every civilisation, and for good reason.
Let me briefly review the argument of the prosecution policy for offences of forced buggery. Such offences are tried on indictment. If the victim is a woman, the maximum punishment is life. If the victim is a teenage boy aged 16 to 21, it is only 10 years. That is discrimination on the irrational basis of the gender of the victim. I know of no other crime where the sentence is determined by the gender of the victim. I want life for male rape.
I come now to the life style argument by quoting Christian Action Research and Education, which said in a letter on 7 February:
Engaging in homosexual acts at a young age involves much more than sleeping with someone; it has now become a decision to adopt a particular lifestyle. The all-embracing power of the homosexual sub-culture in our society should not be underestimated.
An 18-year-old boy who consents to a homosexual act is initiated into a lifestyle that will separate him from the mainstream of society. For vulnerable and lonely teenage boys, homosexuality can offer immediate warmth and acceptance. There is a sense of identity and comradeship, but there is a price to pay—childlessness, instability, disease and now the mortal danger of AIDS. That price is not something which many teenage lads are properly able to evaluate, and that brings me to the immaturity argument.
Even at 18, boys can be sexually and socially confused. In the letter of 7 February, CARE stated:
We do not believe homosexual orientation to be fixed and absolute, and note that emotional feelings towards those of the same sex are not uncommon, particularly in adolescence … The main role of the law in this area must be to protect individuals and especially young people from any exploitation.
Those are sound words, and I agree with them entirely.
The British Medical Association acknowledged in 1976 the
slower rate of biological development
of teenage boys. That comes from the Library research paper, 94/12. Moreover, in 1979, the Home Office Policy Advisory Committee on sexual offences stated:
Many young people aged 16 are still at school or have just started work … They are all to some extent at risk of seduction by homosexuals, especially those in authority over them. Some boys may be confused about their sexuality and a boy who is so confused is particularly open to exploitation. The majority of us do not think that it is a sufficient answer to say that a 16 year old boy is strong enough to repulse any unwanted homosexual advances: the fact that the boy consents to homosexual advances does not mean that he is unlikely to be harmed.
Clearly, any reduction of the age of buggery would put teenage boys who are just below any new age at risk and under greater pressure from the "don't knock it until you've tried it" pro-buggery lobby. Stonewall stated in its "Case for Change" of September 1993 that if 18 was passed it would be back again for 16 and in the meantime it would insist on a policy of no prosecution for the buggery of 16 and 17-year-olds.
Prosecution policy sometimes accepts the existence of grey areas. It is known as the penumbra effect and currently operates with regard to sodomy. There is a general policy of non-prosecution for those over 18. I do


not want to see any such penumbra effect for 16 and 17-year-olds. I ask the Solicitor-General to clarify Government policy tonight. Prosecution policy must uphold a law that has been passed through all its stages in this House and another place and given Royal Assent. It would be a contempt of Parliament for a waiver to be given in those circumstances.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I have a very simple question. Why does my hon. Friend think that the solution to two 18-year-olds consenting to have sex together is to send them to prison?

Dr. Spink: My concern is to prevent those two 18-year-olds having sex that would be medically dangerous and would take them into a life style that they might regret when they became older. I want the age of consent to remain as it is at 21 because I truly, honestly and sincerely feel for those young people. I have a number of young children myself.
I turn now to the unworthy argument, "They do it anyway so why not legalise it?" Some teenage boys abuse dangerous drugs and solvents. I do not want to legalise those practices because, as with buggery, they put our lads at greater risk. Those lads deserve our love, our care and our protection from predatory older men and from themselves. We owe it to them, to their mothers and to their fathers.
I reject the voting age argument and the argument that people fight for their country at 18. One cannot indulge in drugs, in incest or in bestiality at 18 or bugger a woman at 18. Why should one be allowed to bugger a man at 18?
Let me deal now with the feeble-minded freedom argument. Absolute individual freedom is not possible in a civilised society. We all know that. Laws restrict individual freedom—even the freedom to damage oneself or consenting others in private.
While we are on intellectually sloppy arguments, let me put to bed immediately the argument that says that we are out of step with the continent. If that be so, so be it. The continent is out of step with nature. As for the case in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and articles 14 and 18 of the convention, we can face that challenge if we so wish.
The Church Society stated in January:
There is no culture that accepts homosexuality as natural. All world religions consider it immoral.
However, I shall not moralise tonight in any way.[Interruption.] I have not done that. My arguments for animating prosecution policy are purely medical and social and based on my concern for young people. The medical arguments are the strongest, so let me address them now.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Spink: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I explain that it is the convention that hon. Members do not give way in an Adjournment debate unless it has been previously arranged. I have given way on several occasions, but I am using time up.

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. May I point out that interventions are always at the discretion of the person who has the Floor.

Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The medical arguments are the strongest. Hon. Members should look into the darkened, hollow eyes in the white shrunken faces of the young AIDS victims just down the road from here in King's College hospital. Then they would not relax prosecution policy, or legalise, and therefore promote disease-ridden practices of buggery.
Buggery is not like heterosexual intercourse. The receptor organ is entirely different and designed, not to protect, as in the female organ, which is 20 cells thick, but to damage by facilitating the exchange of fluids direct into the bloodstream through the one-cell-thick epithelium. We have gay bowel syndrome, parasitic colon diseases and hepatitis A. Buggery spreads venereal diseases. It spreads blood-borne disease such as AIDS and hepatitis B—a sobering thought even for the responsible sodomite, but not for the generally more promiscuous teenage boys who cannot evaluate the risks. Here I am relying on evidence from the British Medical Association, which stated in January that
unsafe sexual behaviour and HIV infection have both increased among homosexual men after a period of decline and that recent figures for new HIV transmissions show that younger men are disproportionately affected.
Project SIGMA found that homosexuals under 21 are more likely to engage in receptive anal sex without protection. Those under 21 are more likely to be HIV positive and to contract rectal gonorrhoea than the over-21s.
I come now to the important health education argument—the key argument of the pro-teenage buggery lobby. That lobby argues that, to promote safe sex education, buggery should be legalised.
The Education Minister stated in answer to my written question:
The new arrangements for sex education introduced by the Education Act 1993, which will come into force in September 1994, require maintained secondary schools to provide sex education".—[Official Report, 26 January 1994; Vol. 236, c.290.]
That sex education would include clear information on safe sex in a proper context for all children and young people.
Library research paper 94/12 states that in any event
It is well documented that among
homosexual
and bisexual men knowledge of HIV risks is generally accurate and universally high.
The Health Education Authority stated in January 1994 that
much of the"—
sex education—
restriction is self-imposed by health educators and that there is no restriction on aiming health promotion at young
homosexual
men under the age of 21, nor on limiting education in schools aimed at the purpose of treating or preventing … disease.
The law therefore needs clarifying, not changing.
On balance and in the light of the evidence, I reject the health education argument. In a nutshell, children will get safe sex education at school, they universally and accurately know about safe sex and such education is now legal. Many homosexuals still—unbelievably—indulge in unsafe sex, in full knowledge of the dangers, and in any event, safe penetrative anal sex is an illusion.
The editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology has written:
I find absurd the popular notion that condoms allow anyone safely to engaged in sexual relations with HIV carriers … The AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than sperm, therefore the effectiveness of condoms is seriously impaired by the well


established fact that latex rubber contains inherent structural flaws which are at least 50 times larger than the HIV virus.
There is food for thought.
Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to show you this full-page picture of a suggestive nude male and a seductive nude lady. The headline asks, "Which do you find more attractive? " The man or the lady, I suppose. The advertisement continues:
To help you sort out your feelings, it's quite likely you could have a sexual encounter or two with a member of your own sex.
Of course, this should still involve safer sex"—
interestingly it does not mention safe sex, only safer sex—
This could include massage, body rubbing, or mutual masturbation.
Penetrative sex can be more risky. But it is unprotected anal sex that's the riskiest of all … So if you do try it, you should always use stronger condoms … if you practise safer sex"—
again safer and not safe—
you know you're doing everything you can to protect yourself and your partner.
Nowhere does it hint at the possibility of saying no to what is an illegal act. The advertisement seems to be promoting the act.
That advertisement was published in a weekly football magazine for young boys, by the Health Education Authority using public funds. My constituent Mr. Waterton was right to complain of the shock and upset that the advertisement caused his children and those of his friends.Hon. Members will be astounded by that irresponsible advertisement.
On disinformation, I recall that Sir Ian McKellen told me during a live television debate that 97 out of every 100 practising homosexual men do not know about—or have never had any education about—safe sex and condom use. That obviously false assertion typifies the pro-buggery lobby tactics of spreading disinformation and confusion.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Spink: But some of their tactics have been more subtle and they have been aided by a biased or intellectually sloppy media. They talk only of some ephemeral equality, and never about the buggery of teenage boys, which is the only issue that is on the table now. They put up Sir Ian McKellen as their spokesman—a gentle, acceptable, lovable, media-wise operator. He is not some outrageous queen. He would not frighten the horses. He is the kingpin in the seductive, well-oiled homosexual propaganda magazine, but his actor's mask fell when he said that a case could be made for no age of consent.
I turn to homosexual promiscuity and the impact that that has on homosexuals' life expectancy, which is significantly lower than that of their heterosexual counterparts. In Essex, 21 homosexual men have, so far this year, been arrested indulging in acts of gross indecency in one toilet. That practice is happening in hon. Members' constituencies up and down the country even as I speak. Mrs. Edna Adams, a great Dorset dignitary, told me last week that a pair of jeans hung in a tree in Arrowsmith road indicated that the children were not safe because the homosexuals were out.
The promiscuity evidence is explained and developed in the book "The Sexual Dead-End" by Stephen Green MA, but I will give an example. Danneckers' survey found that

80 per cent. of young homosexuals had more than 20 sexual partners and one in seven had sex with more than 50 men in the previous year.
My seventeenth and final argument concerns public opinion. The buggery lobby, Stonewall, commissioned a Harris poll which found that 74 per cent. of the population approved of teenage buggery. Gallup, in its much more independent "Social Trends" poll four months earlier, found that 74 per cent. disapproved. It goes to show that if one pays the piper enough, he will play any tune that one wants. The truth is that the Great British public want homosexuals to live without discrimination but they do not want the buggery of teenage boys. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Dr. Spink: In 1977, their lordships refused to give a Second Reading to Lord Arran's Bill to lower the age for buggery from 21 to 18.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way on buggery?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the point very clearly. May I also point out to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that this is a half-hour debate. The custom is to allow about half the time to the hon. Member raising the subject and about half the time to the Minister.

Dr. Spink: I am indebted to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made an arrangement with the Minister, and I shall stick to it if I may.
The Lords threw out that Bill. One Member of the original Wolfenden Committee, the Marquess of Lothian, argued that boys between 18 and 21 were still at risk of exploitation. Those comments appeared in Hansard of 14 June 1977. Even the libertarian Lord Kinsey concluded that teenage lads experience considerable personal conflict over their homosexual activities and try to make heterosexual adjustments. I beg their lordships to do their duty again.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Solicitor-General, for listening so attentively to my arguments. Does the Solicitor-General recall that, while he was on sabbatical, Lady Thatcher said:
any such proposal would give totally the wrong signal at this time. It would give offence to many people and worry many more and would give us great problems in the future. I would be very much against reducing the age of consent."—[Official Report, 15 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 391.]
Her words were prophetic. As Lady Thatcher indicated, any relaxation of prosecution policy would give totally the wrong signal. The overwhelming medical and social evidence shows that we need a red light not a green light to the buggery of teenage boys.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I am answering the debate as the second Law Officer of the Crown, not as the Member of Parliament for Brighton, Pavilion, in which capacity I voted on the amendment to the age of consent that the House debated on 21 February this year.
I want to make it quite plain to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) that I do not propose to follow him in discussing the relevant merits of any


particular age of consent. I am here to deal with current prosecuting policy on the basis of present law and nothing else.
I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the work done by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. In view of the extensive area that my hon. Friend has covered, I shall go straight to a number of the principal points that he has raised.
First, the CPS deals—and, in the nature of things, can only deal—with those cases brought to its attention by the police. The police set their own operational priorities; no politician, however senior, has any business or power to direct the operational behaviour of the police.
The second matter that I must make plain is that the prosecuting policy in this country is not a matter for the Government at all. It is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the head of the CPS, under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, as the first Law Officer of the Crown. No Minister, however senior, has any right to intervene in the execution of that policy.
There are three main offences to which prosecuting policy refers: buggery, gross indecency between males and solicitation of men. It is significant to observe that, in a number of respects, special safeguards operate before proceedings can be instituted. For example, in relation to buggery or gross indecency, where one or more of the men is under the age of 21, prosecution cannot be instituted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Secondly, there is a time limit on the institution of prosecutions in those cases other than where the victim is a boy under the age of 16. In those other cases, the prosecution must be brought within 12 months of the offence being committed.
The maximum sentence for buggery in particular and, to a lesser extent, gross indecency reflects two main considerations—age and consent. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment and, depending upon age and consent, it descends to two years' imprisonment. As Lord Justice Lawton said in the case of Willis, in an ordinary case of buggery by a mature man with a boy under the age of 16, in the absence of mitigation or aggravation, the correct sentencing bracket is between three and five years. The maximum sentence for gross indecency varies between five years' and six months' imprisonment.
As my hon. Friend has said, the CPS applies two tests before it institutes proceedings. They are exactly the same tests as are applied to any other offences. First, it decides

whether the evidence affords a realistic prospect of conviction; secondly, if that prospect exists, it decides whether the prosecution is in the public interest.
I will glide quickly over the evidential test and go straight to questions of public interest, which I imagine will be of primary concern to most hon. Members.
My hon. Friend said that if one of the offences that I have mentioned had been committed, a prosecution ought to follow, as night follows day. The answer to his point was given as long ago as 1951 by Lord Shawcross, then the Attorney-General, who said:
It has never been the rule in this Country—I hope it never will be—that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution.
Successive Attorney-Generals have followed that injunction from that day to this. Of course, broadly speaking, the graver the offence, the less likelihood there is that the public interest will allow of any other disposal but prosecution.
However, in deciding where the public interest lies we take into account a number of matters. They may include any of the following seven—first, the age and relative ages of the people involved; secondly, whether there is an element of seduction or corruption; thirdly, whether there is any breach of trust; fourthly, whether there has been any exploitation of position or influence; fifthly, the likely sentence; sixthly, the prevalence of a particular offence in an area; seventhly, the prevalence of annoyance or distress to the public.
Therefore, my hon. Friend will understand that there is a difference between offences committed in private and those committed in public as far as the incidence of public interest factors is concerned. The latter two categories—the sixth and seventh considerations that I mentioned—are likely to hold greater weight if the offence takes place in public.
The factors that I have dealt with are set out in the eighth paragraph to the "Code for Crown Prosecutors", which is a public document and a copy of which is in the Library.
My message for my hon. Friend is this. That is the way in which current prosecuting policy works. Those are some of the public interest factors that we apply. Each case is considered on its merits. It is considered without fear or favour, without affection or and on mature reflection he may come to the conclusion that—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.